Skip to main content

Full text of "Institute of Pacific Relations. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-second Congress, first[-second] session .."

See other formats


t 


a^ 


INSTITUTE  OF  PACIFIC  RELATIONS 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE  TO  INVESTIGATE  THE  ADMINISTRATION 

OF  THE  INTERNAL  SECURITY  ACT  AND  OTHER 

INTERNAL  SECURITY  LAWS 

USQ«r3€«-^.  S'^f^TPF  THE 

'^  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIAEY 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

EIGHTY-SECOND  CONGRESS 

SECOND  SESSION 

ON 

THE  INSTITUTE  OF  PACIFIC  RELATIONS 


PART  9 


FEBRUARY  26,  27,  28,  29,  MARCH  1,  AND  3,  1952 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 


B€€ 


34  r9b2     ,    <>  I  ^ 


■'  kK 


UNITED  STATES 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
88348  WASHINGTON  :  1952 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 

PAT  McCARRAN,  Nevada,  Chairman 

HARLEY  M.  KILGORE,  West  Virginia  ALEXANDER  WILEY,  Wisconsin 

JAMES  O.  EASTLAND,  Mississippi  WILLIAM  LANGER,  North  Dakota 

WARREN  G.  MAGNUSON,  Wasliiugton  HOMER  FERGUSON,  Micliigan 

HERBERT  R.  O'CONOR,  Maryland  WILLIAM  E.  JENNER,  Indiana 

ESTES  KEFAUVER,  Tennessee  ARTHUR  V.  WATKINS,  Utah 

WILLIS  SMITH,  North  Carolina  ROBERT  C.  HENDRICKSON,  New  Jersey 

J.  G.  SouKWiNE,  Counsel 


Internal  Security  Subcommittee 

PAT  McCARRAN,  Nevada,  Chairman 

JAMES  O.  EASTLAND,  Mississippi  HOMER  FERGUSON,  Michigan 

HERBERT  R.  CCONOR,  Maryland  WILLIAM  E.  JENNER,  Indiana 

WILLIS  SMITH,  North  Carolina  ARTHUR  V.  WATKINS,  Utah 


Subcommittee  Investigating  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 

JAMES  O.  EASTLAND,  Mississippi,  Chairman 
PAT  McCARRAN,  Nevada  HOMER  FERGUSON,  Michigan 

Robert  Mobbis,  Special  Counsel 
Benjamin  Mandel,  Director  of  Research 
II 


CONTENTS 


Testimony  of—  P-^ses 

Owen  Lattimore 2897-3275 

m 


INSTITUTE  OF  PACIFIC  RELATIONS 


TUESDAY,   FEBRUARY  26,   1952 

United  States  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the  Administration 

OF  THE  Internal  Security  Act  and  Other  Internal 
Security  Laws,  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington^  D.  C. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  2 :  30  p.  m.,  pursuant  to  notice,  in  room 
424  of  the  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Pat  McCarran  (chairman 
of  the  subcommittee)  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  McCarran  (presiding),  O'Conor,  Smith,  Fergu- 
son, Jenner,  and  Watkins. 

Also  present:  J.  G.  Sourwine,  committee  counsel;  and  Robert 
Morris,  subcommittee  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

The  witness  will  please  rise  and  be  sworn. 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  the  testimony  you  are  to  give  before  this 
subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  United  States 
Senate  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth, 
so  help  you  God? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  say  at  the  outset  as  I  have  said  before, 
that  pictures  might  be  taken  before  the  hearings  but  not  during  the 
hearings.  We  do  not  think  it  is  best  to  annoy  or  interrupt  the  wit- 
nesses in  their  testimony. 

When  the  Members  of  the  Senate  became  members  of  this  com- 
mittee, both  the  chairman  of  the  committee  and  the  members  of  the 
committee  individually  and  collectively  fully  realized  that  we  were 
to  be  and  would  be  the  targets  of  invective  and  disparaging  remarks 
and  statements.  Our  anticipation  in  that  regard  has  been  fully  car- 
ried out.  The  Daily  Worker  has  devoted  many  columns  to  its  con- 
demnation of  this  committee,  its  members,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  operated.  Every  Communist  in  America  has  taken  opportu- 
nity to  cast  invective  and  discouraging  and  disparaging  remarks  with 
reference  to  this  committee  and  its  membership.  We  were  fully  ad- 
vised before  we  undertook  this  task  that  such  would  be  the  course 
and  procedure.  It  is  not  at  all  out  of  line  with  the  general  procedure 
of  the  Communist  Party  and  Communists  generally  in  the  world. 

For  many  months  one  of  the  great  jurists  of  America,  Judge 
Medina,  sat  in  trial  during  all  kinds  of  condemnatory  remarks  and 
insulting  expressions.  He  dealt  with  the  matter  at  the  close  of  that 
great  trial. 

A  statement  has  been  filed  today  by  the  witness.  The  ticker  shortly 
after  noon  announced  that  that  statement  was  available  to  those  who 

2897 


2898  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

saw  fit  to  read  it  and  it  was  at  the  office  of  the  attorney  for  the  wit- 
ness. The  press  has  that  statement  now.  Of  course,  that  statement 
and  its  remarks  are  no  longer  privileged,  as  that  term  is  known  in  the 
law.  The  witness  must  be  responsible  for  the  full  gravity  of  his 
remarks  produced  in  that  statement.  In  that  statement  there  is  car- 
ried out  the  same  policy  as  has  been  carried  out  against  this  commit- 
tee. Intemperate  and  provocative  expressions  are  there  set  out  and 
elaborated  upon. 

This  committee  could  exercise  its  rights.  We  could  deny  that  state- 
ment the  right  to  become  a  part  of  the  record.  We  realize  that  this 
is  a  country  of  free  speech,  that  that  is  one  of  our  great  heritages, 
and  we  propose  to  see  to  it  that  it  is  carried  out  here  today.  Not- 
withstanding the  insulting  and  offensive  remarks  that  appear  in  the 
record,  the  statement  made  by  the  witness  now  under  oath,  he  may 
proceed  with  his  statement  with  the  understanding  that  from  time  to 
time  as  he  goes  along  counsel  for  the  committee  will  interrogate  him. 

You  may  proceed,  sir. 

TESTIMONY   OF   OWEN   LATTIMORE,   ACCOMPANIED  BY   HIS 

COUNSEL,  ABE  FOETAS 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Senator,  before  the  witness  proceeds,  may  I  identify 
myself  on  the  record.  I  am  Abe  Fortas,  of  Arnold,  Fortas  &  Porter, 
here  as  counsel  for  Owen  Lattimore.  Our  address  is  1200  Eighteenth 
Street  NW.,  of  this  city. 

Senator,  I  should  like  to  ask  you  to  advise  me  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  attorneys.  I  have  examined  your  record  of  these  hear- 
ings and  I  find  that  you  yourself  made  the  following  statement  on 
July  25,  1951 

The  Chairman.  What  I  said  is  not  necessary.  I  can  tell  you  in  a 
minute,  Mr.  Fortas. 

I  did  tell  yon  privately  and  I  will  tell  you  now  on  the  record  that 
you  will  be  permitted  to  remain  here.  You  will  not  be  permitted 
to  testify  and  you  will  not  be  permitted  to  suggest  answers  to  ques- 
tions. When  the  witness  seeks  your  counsel  he  will  have  opportunity 
to  obtain  your  counsel. 

Mr.  Fortas.  Thank  yon,  Senator.  May  I  ask  whether  I  am  per- 
mitted to  object  to  questions? 

The  Chairman.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Might  I  ask  counsel  if  this  press  release  was 
issued  from  your  office? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Senator,  I  was  out  of  town  yesterday,  and  my  knowl- 
edge of  it  is  that  Mrs.  Lattimore  delivered  copies  to  counsel  to  the 
committee  at  1  o'clock  on  yesterday,  that  thereafter  copies  were  made 
available  to  the  press  and  copies  were  available  in  my  office  for  mem- 
bers of  the  press. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So  that  your  office  in  effect  circulated  this  state- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Fortas.  Well,  you  are  using  a  term  with  legal  connotations. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  are  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  Fortas.  Yes,  but  I  have  not  considered  that  question,  and  I 
would  not  be  prepared  to  answer  it  at  tliis  moment. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Have  you  read  the  statement  ? 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  have. 


INSTITUTE   OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2899 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  prepare  it  or  help  to  prepare  it? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  consulted  with  Mr.  Lattimore  while  it  was  being  pre- 
pared;  yes,  sir ;  and  I  consulted  extensively. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  knew  it  was  to  be  used  and  circulated  prior 
to  the  reading  of  it  in  this  hearing  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  certainly  did,  and  I  see  nothing  improper  about  it 
and  nothing  unconventional  about  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  about  the  facts? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  I  have  no  personal  knowledge  aside  from  the  usual 
sources  that  a  lawyer  knows,  of  course,  Senator.  As  you  know,  Sen- 
ator, a  lawyer  never  vouches  for  statements  when  he  has  no  personal 
knowledge  of  the  facts. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  the  next  question,  as  to  whether  or  not 
you  approved  the  statement.  ,    . 

Mr.  Fortas.  You  know  what  a  lawyer  does,  and  you  are  a  distin- 
guished lawyer  yourself. 

The  Chadrman.  You  could  answer  that  question,  Mr.  Fortas. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  approve  the  statement? 

Mr.  Fortas.  From  a  legal  point  of  view,  absolutely ;  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  If  I  might  intervene  for  just  a  moment  before  Mr. 
Lattimore  starts  reading  his  statement,  I  have,  I  think,  just  three  or 
four  preliminary  questions.  Have  you  identified  yourself  for  tliis 
record,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  did  in  executive  session. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Would  you  for  the  purpose  of  this  public  session 
just  give  your  name  and  address  to  the  reporter? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  name  is  Owen  Lattimore,  and  my  address  is 

Kuxton  4,  Md. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  think  we  can  dispense  with  the  other  formalities, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  let  the  witness  begin  with  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well,  Mr.  Lattimore ;  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senators,  I  have  asked  for  this  public  hearing  be- 
cause your  proceedings  have  resulted  in  serious  damage  to  my  repu- 
tation as  an  objective  scholar  and  patriotic  citizen,  to  the  Institute  of 
IPacific  Relations  with  which  I  have  been  connected,  and  to  our  Gov- 
ernment's Foreign  Service  personnel  and  the  conduct  of  its  foreign 
policy. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  If  the  Chair  will  excuse  me,  please,  we  have  here 
the  letter  by  which  Mr.  Lattimore  asked  for  a  hearing,  the  chairman's 
reply,  Mr.  Lattimore's  subsequent  request  for  a  postponement,  and  the 
chairman's  reply ;  and  if  the  witness  will  identify  these  two  letters  I 
suggest  that  those  should  go  into  the  record  at  this  point,  as  supple- 
mentary to  the  statement  of  the  witness  that  he  asked  to  be  heard. 

(^^Hi'ereupon  the  documents  were  shown  to  the  witness.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  letter  of  November  6  is  your  original  request 
to  be  heard ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattuviore.  I  think  so ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  those  go  into  the  record  ? 


2900  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

The  Chairman.  Those  may  be  in  the  record. 

(The  documents  referred  to  were  marked  "Exhibits  459A,  B,  C,  D," 
and  are  as  follows :) 

Exhibit  No.  459A 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
The  Walter  Hines  Page  School  of  International  Relations, 

Office  of  the  Director, 
Baltimore,  Md.,  November  6,  1951. 
Hon.  Pat  McCarran, 

Senate  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Dear  Senator  McCarran  :  It  has  repeatedly  been  reported  in  the  press  that 
your  subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  has  promised  that  I  will 
me  given  an  opportunity  to  refute  publicly  the  false  and  slanderous  allegations 
that  have  been  made  about  me  before  your  subcommittee.  Months  have  now 
gone  by  without  my  being  given  this  opportunity,  and  I  am  nov?  informed  that 
your  subcommittee  will  hold  no  more  public  hearings  until  January.  This  long 
delay  greatly  increases  the  injury  done  to  me. 

I  trust  tbat  you  will  notify  me  at  an  early  date  when  I  can  expect  to  have  a 
public  hearing.    It  will,  of  course,  take  me  at  least  a  week  to  make  arrangements 
and  preparation  for  the  hearing,  and  I  should  therefore  appreciate  as  much 
advance  notice  as  possible. 
Yours  sincerely, 

[S]     Owen  Lattimore. 


Owen  Lattimore. 


0L:c. 


Exhibit  No.  459B 


November  10,  1951. 


Mr.  Owen  Lattimore, 

Walter  Hines  Page  School  of  International  Relations, 
The  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Dear  Mr.  Lattimore:  Your  letter  of  November  6  has  been  forwarded  to  me 
here. 

The  committee  had  been  planning  to  call  you  as  a  witness  at  the  convenience 
of  the  committee.  Now  that  you  have,  in  the  letter  above  referred  to,  requested 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  an  effort  will  be  made  to  hear  you  at  your  conven- 
ience. You  are,  however,  quite  correct  in  your  understanding  that  there  will  be 
no  more  public  hearings  until  January. 

You  will  be  given,  as  you  request,  at  least  a  week's  advance  notice  of  the  date 
at  which  you  will  be  called  to  appear  before  the  committee. 
Sincerely, 

[S]     Pat  McCarran. 


Exhibit  No.  459  G 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
the  Walter  Hines  Page  School  of  International  Relations, 

Office  of  the  Director, 
Baltimore,  Md.,  December  20,  1951. 
Hon.  Pat  McCarran, 

Chairman,  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Internal  Security, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator  McCarran  :  On  November  6,  I  wrote  you  to  inquire  as  to 
the  date  when  your  subcommittee  might  afford  me  a  public  hearing,  and  on 
November  10,  you  replied  stating  that  an  effort  would  be  made  to  hear  me  at  my 
convenience,  but  that  there  would  be  no  more  public  hearings  until  January. 
You  also  stated  that  I  would  be  given  at  least  a  week's  advance  notice  of  the 
date  on  which  I  would  be  called  to  appear. 

You  may  remember  that  I  appeared  before  your  subcommitteee  on  July  13  in 
response  to  your  subpena. 

I  have  been  invited  to  lecture  in  London  before  the  Royal  Geographical  Society 
and  the  Royal  Central  Asian  Society.    The  lecture  before  the  Royal  Geographical 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2901 

Society  has  been  scheduled  for  January  14.  The  lecture  before  the  Royal  Central 
Asian  Society  was  scheduled  to  commence  on  December  19,  but  this  date  has  been 
postponed  because  of  a  delay  in  my  date  of  departure  from  the  United  States. 

Mrs.  Lattimore  and  I  plan  to  proceed  to  Loudon  by  air,  leaving  here  on  Decem- 
ber 27,  and  to  return  about  January  20.  I  shall  be  available  to  your  committee 
at  any  time  thereafter,  but  I  should  like,  as  I  indicated  in  my  letter  of  November 
6,  to  have  a  week's  notice  of  the  exact  time  when  I  am  to  be  called  so  that  I  may 
complete  preparations  for  my  appearance.  This  would  mean  that  I  could  appear 
before  your  committee  at  any  time  beginning  January  28. 

I  continue  to  be  eager  to  testify  at  a  public  session  of  your  committee,  and  I 
hope  that  my  trip  to  England  will  not  inconvenience  you. 
Yours  sincerely, 

[s]  Owen  Lattimore. 
Owen   Lattimore. 


Exhibit  No.  459  D 


December  28,  1951. 


Mr.  Owen  Lattimore, 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University, 

Baltimore,  Md. 
Dear  Mr.  Lattimore:  This  will  acknowledge  your  letter  of  December  20  in 
which  you  informed  me  of  your  invitation  to  lecture  in  London  before  the  Royal 
Geoegraphical  Society  and  the  Royal  Central  Asian  Society. 

Your  trip  to  England  will  not  inconvenience  the  subcommittee  in  any  way,  and 
you  may  complete  your  plans  as  scheduled. 

I  appreciate  your  desire  to  testify  at  public  sessions  of  our  committee  as  your 
testimony  will  be  very  interesting.    We  wiU  schedule  your  appearance  sometime 
after  your  return  to  this  country. 
Sincerely, 

[S]     Pat  McCarran. 

Mr.  SouR^VTNE.  In  the  opening  paragraph  of  your  statement,  have 
you  expressed  the  four  points  which  give  you  concern  with  regard  to 
the  conduct  of  these  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  These  are  four  introductory  points,  and  I  don't 
know  whether  you  would  consider  some  of  the  supplementary  material 
that  comes  later  to  be  separate  points  or  not. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Have  you  expressed  those  points  in  the  order  of 
their  primary  interest  to  you — that  is  first  yourself,  second  the  IPR, 
and  third  the  Foreign  Service,  and  fourth  the  United  States  foreign 
policy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  don't  think  I  thought  of  it  that  way  when 
I  drafted  it.  On  the  whole  I  can  say  "No,"  it  is  rather  the  reverse 
order. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  impression  has  been  assiduously  conveyed  in 
your  proceedings 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  mean  by  "assiduously  conveyed"  to  make  the 
charge  that  the  committee  has  intended  to  convey  a  certain  impres- 
sion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mean  that  witness  after  witness  before  this  com- 
mittee has  attempted  to  convey  this  impression  and  that  no  witnesses 
have  been  asked  any  question  that  might  test  their  veracity. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  mean  to  charge,  sir,  that  the  committee 
has  intended  to  coiivey  a  particular  impression  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  cannot  answer  for  what  is  in  the  minds  of  the 
committee. 


r^ 


2992  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  We  are  asking-  you  what  is  in  your  mind,  sir,  what 
you  intended  to  convey  by  the  use  of  that  phrase. 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  intended  to  convey  by  the  use  of  that  phrase 
exactly  what  is  stated  here. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Might  I  inquire?  Do  you  include  yourself  as 
one  of  the  witnesses  among  those  that  you  have  mentioned? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  mean  attempted  to  convey  that  I  am  a  Com- 
munist or  Communist  sympathizer? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  mention  Communist  or  Communist 
sympathizer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  been  heard  once  in  executive  session. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  say  no  vv^itness  has  been  questioned. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  None  of  these  witnesses  referred  to  here. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  were  you  questioned? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  questioned  in  executive  session  some  7  or  8 
months  ago,  and  I  have  no  transcript  of  that  session. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  ask  to  see  the  transcript? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  asked  to  see  the  transcript  afterward,  to  go  over 
it  and  see  if  there  were  any  mistakes  in  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  go  over  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So  you  had  the  transcript,  and  you  knew  what 
its  contents  were  ? 

I\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  read  the  transcript  about  7  months  ago,  and  nat- 
urally my  memory  of  it  is  not  very  fresh  now. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  make  any  notes  about  it? 

JSIr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  made  no  notes  when  I  read  the  transcript. 

Senator  Watkins.  Do  you  have  an  extra  copy  of  your  statement,  so 
that  we  may  follow  it  when  you  make  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  if  I  have  any  more. 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  Tliere  were  copies  delivered  for  each  member  of  the 
committee,  and  the  copies  that  were  brought  here  have  all  been  dis- 
tributed to  the  press. 

Senator  Ferguson.  How  many  were  distributed  to  the  press,  Mr. 
Fort  as? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  haven't  any  idea. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  how  many  you  had  made,  Mr. 
Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir ;  I  don't. 

Senator  Watkins.  It  is  easier  to  follow  you  if  we  have  a  statement. 

Mr.  SouRWTNE.  If  we  might  get  back  to  this  question  of  your 
phrase,  "assiduously  conveyed,"  what  did  you  mean  by  that  word 
"assiduously"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  believe  the  Latin  etymology  of  the  word 
probably  means  to  sit  down  and  stick  at. 

Mr.  Souravine.  It  comes  from  "assiduus,"  doesn't  it?  Did  you 
use  it  in  that  sense? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  sense  in  which  I  used  it, 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

IVfr.  Lattimore.  The  impression  has  been  assiduously  conveyed  in 
your  proceedings  that  I  am  a  Communist  or  a  Communist  sympa- 
thizer or  dupe 

Mr.  Souravine.  How  has  that  been  conveyed,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  the  record  is  full  of  it,  sir. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2903 

Mr.  SoTJRwiNE.  You  are  making  the  charge,  sir,  and  has  anyone 
on  the  committee  conveyed  that  impression,  or  has  it  been  conveyfed 
only  by  witnesses  testifying  here  under  oath  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  some  of  the  leading  questions  of  members 
of  the  committee  could  be  so  interpreted,  perhaps. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Are  you  interpreting  the  questions  asked  by  the 
committee  as  intended  to  convey  that  you  were  a  Communist  or  Com- 
munist sympathizer  or  dupe  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  writing  this  opening  part  of  my  statement,  I 
was  trying  to  convey  an  over-all  impression  of  hearings  that  had  been 
going  on  for  8  months  or  so  in  which  hostile  evidence,  evidence  hostile 
to  me  and  others,  has  been  piled  up,  and  at  this  present  time  I  am 
attempting  to  deal  with  that  accumulation  of  many  months. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  inquire  there  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  witness  believes  that  it  is  an  important  subject 
to  inquire  as  to  whether  or  not  an  institution  that  is  giving  informa- 
tion to  the  public  has  been  penetrated  by  Communists  or  Communist 
sympathizers  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  subject  is  obviously  important,  but  as  you  will 
find  later  in  this  statement,  I  raise  the  point  that  previous  clarifica- 
tion as  concerns  myself  was  rather  copiously  provided  2  years  ago 
before  the  Tydings  committee,  and  has  been  completely  disregarded 
in  the  hearings  before  this  committee. 

Seiiator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  that  this  committee  should  take 
the  record  of  the  Tydings  committee  and  close  its  proceedings  and  not 
conduct  any  examination;  is  that  what  you  are  asking? 

]SIr.  Lattimore.  That  is  not  what  I  am  asking. 

Senator-FERGUSON.  "\'\'liy  do  you  mention  it,  then? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mention  it  because  I  think  that  it  is  relevant  to 
any  such  inquiiy,  and  yet — especially  as  far  as  I  myself  am  con- 
cerned— and  yet  no  reference  has  been  made  to  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  claim  that  that  was  a  full  and  complete 
examination  of  the  question  of  the  penetration  of  Communists  or 
Communist  sympathizers  into  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Eelations  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  claiming  that  it  was  relevant  to  me  per- 
sonally, and  my  connections  with  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Eelations 
were  included  in  that  inquiry. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And,  therefore,  this  committee  should  not  have 
gone  into  the  question  of  your  relations  with  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Eelations? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  the  question  of  my  relations  with  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Eelations  might  have  been  brought  up  with  ref- 
erence to  what  had  gone  before. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  do  I  understand,  then,  that  you  think  that 
this  committee  should  not  have  gone  into  that  question  here  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  I  am  merely  suggesting  that  a  more  fair  way 
of  going  into  the  question,  as  far  as  I  myself  am  concerned,  would 
have  been  to  maintain  at  least  the  continuity  of  the  record  between 
the  extensive  replies  that  I  gave  before  the  Tydings  committee  and 
the  allegations  that  have  been  made  here. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  figure  that  you  were  cross-examined  by 
the  Tydings  committee? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do. 


2904  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  Completely  cross-examined;  you  think  all  of 
the  facts  were  brought  out? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  think  that  Senator  Hickenlooper  went  into 
a  f^reat  deal  of  detail  over  many  hours. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  the  Tydings  committee  have  the  records 
that  wei-e  obtained  by  this  committee  from  up  in  Concord  in  Massa- 
chusetts? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  it  didn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  do  you  think  that  they  could  have  ex- 
ami)ied  this  problem  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations,  without 
those  records? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  only  point  I  am  making,  Senator,  is  that  no 
continuity  or  connection  has  been  established  in  the  hearings  before 
this  committee  with  the  inquiry  that  was  conducted  by  the  Tydings 
committee,  and  I  am  not  suggesting  that  one  should  have  been  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  other. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  do  you  not  think,  from  one  of  j^our  an- 
SAvers  here,  that  you  have  indicated  that  this  committee  had  gone  out 
of  its  way  in  an  unfair  manner  to  conduct  these  hearings  about  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Relations? 

Mr.  Latt'imore.  I  am  merely  saying  that  as  far  as  I,  myself,  am 
concerned,  I  think  the  committee  would  have  been  fairer  if  it  had 
taken  into  account  the  record  of  the  Tydings  hearings. 

Senator  Ferguson.  On  the  question  of  the  activities  of  the  Institute 
of  Pacific  Relations? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  On  the  question  of  myself  and  any  connection  be- 
tween me  and  the  institute. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  have  stated  that  the  impression 
has  been  assiduously  conveyed,  and  you  have  explained  what  you 
meant  by  that  in  the  proceedings  of  this  committee,  that  you  are  a 
Communist  or  a  Communist  sympathizer  or  dupe.  Have  witnesses 
before  this  committee  testified  that  you  were  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  witnesses  before  this  committee  testified  that 
you  were  a  Communist  sympathizer? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SouRw^iNE.  Have  witnesses  before  this  committee  testified  that 
you  were  a  dupe  ? 

Mr.  Lattumore.  I  think  one  or  two  witnesses  have  suggested  that  I 
was  either  a  sympathizer  or  a  dupe. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  remember  who  any  of  those  witnesses  were? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  read  through  such  a  mass  of  this  stuff  re- 
cently that  I  am  afraid  my  memory  is  not  very  clear  on  many  of  these 
details. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  recall  w^hether,  in  fact,  a  witness  did  so 
testify,  or  whether  you  simply  added  that  yourself  as  a  third  or  pos- 
sible alternative? 

Mr.  LAT'riMORE.  Oh,  no,  it  was  based  on  a  definite  impression  from 
my  reading  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  see,  I  have  been  working  on  this  for  a  long 
time,  I  have  been  making  notes  as  I  went  along,  and  the  notes  were 
eventually  incorporated  into  this  statement.  But  in  view  of  the  kind 
of  work,  that  goes  over  and  over  a  subject,  you  sometimes  have  the 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2905 

note  that  establishes  a  particular  point,  but  your  mind  loses  the  con- 
nection with  which  the  point  was  originally  made.  I  am  satisfied  with 
the  point,  however. 

The  impression  has  been  assiduously  conveyed  m  your  proceedmgs 
that  I  am  a  Communist  or  a  Conmiunist  sympathizer  or  dupe ;  that  I 
master  minded  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 

Mr.  Sour  WINE.  At  that  point,  sir,  to  what  extent  did  you  have  to 
do  with  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  During  my  period  of  employment  by  the  Institute 
of  Pacific  Relations  from  1934  to  1941, 1  was  responsible  solely  for  the 
editing  of  the  quarterly  magazine,  Pacific  Affairs. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Dennett,  a  former  secretary 
of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations,  had  testified  that  you  and  Mr. 
Jessup  were  the  two  principal  leaders  of  the  affairs  of  that  institute  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  aware  tl^.at  he  so  testified,  and  I  would  dispute 
the  accuracy  of  his  testimony. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  impression  has  been  assiduously  conveyed  in 
your  proceedings  that  I  am  a  Communist  or  a  Communist  syinpathizer 
or  dupe ;  that  I  master-minded  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations ;  that 
the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  and  I  master-minded  the  far-eastern 
experts  of  the  State  Department^ 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  If  you  will  pardon  me,  Mr.  Lattimore,  can  you  say 
that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  and  you  had  no  influence  upon 
the  far-eastern  experts  of  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  By  the  w^ay,  what  is  your  name,  sir? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Sourwine,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  hate  replying  in  the  blank. 

]\Ir.  Sourwine.  I  was  present  at  the  executive  sessions,  and  I  met 
you,  sir,  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  publications  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Rela- 
tions were  available  to  all  and  sundry,  including 

The  Chairman.  Now,  you  are  not  answering  the  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  leading  up  to  my  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  is  a  necessary  introduction. 

Including  members  of  the  Government.  In  the  years  when  I  was 
active  in  the  institute,  the  number  of  far-eastern  experts  and  people 
primarily  interested  in  the  Far  East  was  relatively  small.  So  far  as  I 
know,  practically  all  of  them  either  belonged  to  the  institute  or  read 
its  publications. 

ISIr.  Sourwine.  Are  you  including  in  that  statement  the  far-eastern 
experts  of  the  State  Department  ? 

^Ir.  Latti:more.  I  am  including  them ;  and  therefore,  it  would  be  my 
assumption  that  practically  all  far-eastern  personnel,  or  personnel 
dealing  with  the  Far  East,  in  the  Department  of  State,  would  read  the 
publications  of  the  institute. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  most  of  them,  you  say,  were  members  of  the 
institute? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  some  of  them  were. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Didn't  you  say  most  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattoiore.  I  said  most  people  interested  in,  and  how  far  that 
includes  the  Government  personnel,  I  have  no  way  of  knowing. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  it  include  some? 


2906  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore,  The  records  of  the  institute  would  doubtless  show. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  know  that  it  did  include  some  of  the  far- 
eastern  experts  of  the  State  Department,  that  is,  the  membersliip  of 
the  IPR  did  include  some  of  those  experts  ? 

JMr.  Lattimore.  I  know  in  general  that  it  included  some,  and  I 
couldn't  name  you  anyone  definitely. 

JMr.  SouRwiNE.  Well,  now,  let  us  get  back  to  the  original  question : 
Can  you  say  that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  and  you  had  no 
influence  on  the  far-eastern  experts  of  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  the  Avay  in  which  I  was  trying  to  answer  the 
question  was  that  I  assume  that  those  who  read  the  publications  of  the 
institute  formed  their  own  opinions  about  it,  but  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible for  me  to  answer  on  behalf  of  an  anonymous  Mr,  X  in  the  State 
Department  whether  he  personally  was  influenced  by  the  work  of  the 
institute,  and  if  so,  how  much. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Might  I  ask  a  question  there?  Did  you  intend 
to  influence  the  people  in  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  program  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 
was  perfectly  clear,  Senator.  It  was  to  make  available  on  the  mar- 
ket, the  market  of  ideas,  the  most  accurate  information  that  it  could 
assemble  on  the  subject  of  the  Far  East,  so  that  those  who  were  inter- 
ested could  use  that  information  as  they  themselves  saw  best. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  I  would  like  to  have  you  answer  the  question. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Answer  my  question :  Did  you  intend  to  influ- 
ence the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  We  intended  to  contribute  to  the  general  fund  of 
knowledge  about  the  Far  East.  Any  question  of  a  particular  intent 
to  interest  the  State  Department  as  a  policy-making  organ  of  the  Gov- 
ernment was,  to  the  extent  of  my  knowledge,  never  dreamed  of. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  did  you  furnish  pamphlets  and  booklets 
and  books  to  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  didn't  personally. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  mean  the  institute. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  would  have  to  ask  someone  in  the  institute  who 
was  in  charge  of  distribution. 

May  I  say  that  the  Foreign  Policy  Association  and  other  organiza- 
tions interested  in  foreign  policj^,  I  believe  that  the  general  practice  is 
to  sell  the  publications;  and  then,  in  order  to  promote  the  sale  of  pub- 
lications, to  send  free  copies  to  people  who  might  become  likely  sub- 
scribers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  furnish  free  copies  of  the  Pacific  Af- 
fairs, of  which  you  were  the  editor  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  occasionally  sent  out  free  copies ;  yes,  sir. 
Senator  Ferguson.  To  the  State  Department  or  any  officials  in  the 
State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  don't  recall  whether  they  were  included  or  not. 
Senator  Ferguson.  Then  when  you  say  you  did  not  want  to  influ- 
ence the  State  Department  officials 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  far  as  I  was  concerned,  the  intention  was  to 

provide  information  for  those  who  were  interested  in  the  belief,  which 

I  thhik  is  a  good  old  American  belief,  that  out  of  a  free  market  of 

information  and  ideas,  the  best  will  eventually  win  out  in  competition. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  figured  yours  was  the  best  ? 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2907 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  We  furnished  many  kinds  of  opinion,  as  well  as 
information. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  would  not  say  it  was  good,  bad,  and 
indifferent  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  would  say  that  to  the  best  of  our  ability  we 
always  produced  well-informed  opinion. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  would  be  the  best? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  impossible  to  say  what  would  be  the  best, 
because  the  Far  East  then,  as  now,  was  an  area  of  controversy,  and 
equally  well-informed  people  might  come  to  different  conclusions  from 
the  same  data. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  if  such  was  the  purpose,  includ- 
ing the  making  available  to  the  State  Department,  with  possibly  hav- 
ing some  effect  on  their  policy,  was  any  effort  made  to  prevent  Com- 
munists from  having  any  voice  in  the  conduct  of  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Eelations  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  First,  I  would  like  to  be  a  little  more  precise  about 
your  wording,  "to  make  available  to  the  State  Department,"  which 
implies  an  exceptional  interest  in  getting  the  State  Department 

Senator  O'Conor.  If  it  were  not  exceptional,  it  was  not  kept  from 
the  State  Department ;  the  information  that  you  were  making  avail- 
able to  others,  you  certainly  had  a  right  to  assume  would  be  available 
to  the  State  Department. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  why  I  say  that  I  prefer  a  wording  "to  make 
available,"  rather  than  "to  make  available  to  the  State  Department." 

Senator  O'Conor.  Does  that  satisfy  you,  that  it  was  available  to 
the  State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  the  wording  is  that  it  was  as  available  to  the 
State  Department  as  it  was  to  anybody  else. 

Senator  O'Conor.  And  that  was,  of  course,  your  reason  for  being, 
was  it  not :  to  make  it  generally  available  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  make  it  generally  available. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Now,  my  question  was :  What,  if  any,  steps  were 
taken  during  the  time  that  you  were  there  to  prevent  Communists 
from  having  voice  in  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Relations? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  From  1934  to  1941,  as  I  have  stated  before,  I  was 
responsible  only  for  Pacific  Affairs,  and  most  of  that  time  that  was 
a  one-man  and  a  secretary  office,  and  most  of  the  time  it  was  not 
in  the  United  States.  I  was  not  responsible  for  the  employment  of 
any  personnel  in  New  York  or  elsewhere,  and  hence  not  responsible 
for  policies  of  employment. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  am  waiting  for  you  to  answer  the  question. 
Does  that  complete  your  answer  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  am  waiting  for  an  answer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  I  was  not  in  a  position  to  have  any  concern 
with  whether  Communists  were  employed  or  not. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Are  we  to  understand  that  you  were  not  inter- 
ested in  whether  or  not  Communists  participated  in  the  formation  of 
opinion  and  the  dissemination  of  factual  information,  and  are  we 
to  understand  that  you  were  disinterested  and  indifferent? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  I  think  that  you  can  understand.  Senator, 
simply  that  the  matter  never  came  within  my  purview. 


2908  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  read  Pacific  Affairs  before  it  was  sent 
out  to  the  public  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  editor,  I  read  everything  that  went  in  before  it 
went  in. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  were  you  not  concerned  as  to  whether  or 
not  pro-Communists  were  writing  for  that  magazine  while  you  were 
editor  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  a  different  question,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  answer  that  one. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  asked  about  the  institute. 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question. 

(The  pending  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

The  Chairman.  I  think  that  that  can  be  answered  promptly.  You 
can  answer  it  categorically. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  answer  is  that  I  was  concerned  primarily  with 
the  qualitj^  of  matter  that  went  in.  The  Soviet  Council  was  one  of 
the  members  of  the  institute,  and  naturally  I  assumed  that  anything 
contributed  by  the  Soviet  Council  was  contributed  by  a  Communist. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Therefore,  you  felt  that  that  would  be  a  colored 
view,  if  it  was  contributed  by  the  Communists  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  assumed  that  any  contribution  coming  from  the 
Soviet  Union  would  be  in  conformity  with  official  Communist 
doctrine. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  it  would  be  colored? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  would  be  colored  according  to  official  Com- 
munist doctrine. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  did  you  ever  ascertain  or  try  to  ascertain 
whether  or  not  any  writers  other  than  those  in  the  Soviet  Union,  as 
members  of  their  Government,  were  putting  any  articles  in  the  mag- 
azine of  which  you  were  the  editor? 

IMr.  Lattimore.  In  regard  to  any  contributions  other  than  Soviet 
contributions,  if  the  contribution  had  struck  me  as  Communist  or 
Communist  propaganda,  I  would  certainly  have  gone  into  the  matter. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  go  into  the  matter  as  to  who  was 
writing,  whether  they  were  Communists  or  pro-Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  always  went  into  the  matter  from  the  point  of 
view  of  whether  the  man  was  well-informed  and  knew  his  stuff ;  and 
if  anything  had  struck  me  as  Communist  propaganda,  as  such,  I  would 
certainly  have  taken  up  the  matter. 

_  Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  at  that  time  you  could  have  recog- 
nized pro-Communist  propaganda? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  Very  likely  there  would  be  forms  of  Communist 
propaganda  that  would  get  by  me. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  were  able  to  detect  Communist  propaganda 
at  that  time? 

IMr.  Lattimore.  I  would  not  consider  myself  an  expert  on  the 
subject. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  it  may  be  that  because  of  your  inexpe- 
rience in  Communist  propaganda  that  you  did  not  recognize  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  possible;  and  it  is  also  pertinent,  I  think, 
Senator,  to  remember  that  in  the  1930's  there  was  neither  the  same 
general  understanding  of  Communist  methods  of  conspiracy  and  in- 
filtration that  there  is  now,  nor  the  same  general  apprehension  on  the 
subject.     The  occasional  publication  of  left-wing  articles  was  com- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2909 

mon  in  many  journals  of  repute,  and  people  were  not  concerned  then 
as  they  are  today  with  precise  shades  of  difference  among  leftists. 

Senator  Ferguson,  Is  that  the  reason  that  you  allowed  them  to  ap- 
pear in  Pacific  Afl'airs,  because  they  were  appearing  in  other  mag- 
azines ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  standard  in  Pacific  Affairs  was  to  secure,  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  well-informed  articles. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  now,  the  question  is:  Could  you  detect, 
if  you-  were  not  an  expert  in  Communist  propaganda,  that  they  were 
not  giving  you  well-informed  articles,  but  they  were  giving  you  pure, 
unadulterated  Communist  propaganda  under  the  label  of  facts? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  think,  Senator,  that  even  without  being  an  expert, 
if  I  had  been  presented  with  pure,  unadulterated  Communist  propa- 
ganda I  would  probably  have  recognized  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Will  you  say  the  Pacific  Affairs  never  presented 
any  pro-Communist  propaganda  at  the  time  you  were  editor? 

ilr.  Lattimore.  I  want  to  be  fair  to  the  people  that  contributed  to 
Pacific  Affairs,  and  I  think  that  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  therefore, 
to  define  a  little  more  sharply  what  you  mean  by  "pro-Communist." 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  answer  the  question  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  what  pro-Communist  is?  I  will 
not  question  you  if  you  do  not  know  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  should  say  pro-Communist,  particularly 
in  the  1930's,  might  include  a  very  wide  range,  including  some  things 
that  some  people  would  call  pro- Communist  and  other  people  would 
not. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  did  you  recognize  any  pro-Communist 
propaganda  in  the  magazine  while  you  were  editor? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Pro-Communist  in  the  sense  of,  say,  promoting 
communism  in  the  United  States,  you  mean  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Promoting  it  in  the  world.  You  know  that  it 
is  not  a  local  matter,  communism,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  We  are  on  the  question  of  promoting.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  know  we  are. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  If  I  might  interrupt,  the  question  which  has  not 
yet  been  answered  is  way  back  when,  if  the  Senator  will  excuse  me. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  the  only  question  which  has  not  been 
answered,  but  if  we  could  get  to  a  question  that  would  be  answered 
once  in  a  while,  it  would  be  very  helpful. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Can  you  answer  the  question? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  What  are  we  driving  af  right  now  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  do  not  know  what  you  are  driving  at.  I  am 
trying  to  get  an  answer  to  a  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  Senator,  looking  at  it  from  1952,  I  would 
find  it  extremely  difficult  to  lay  down  a  definition  of  what  was  pro- 
Communist  in  1935  or  1936. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  was  not  my  question.  I  will  go  back  and 
ask  you  another  question.  Was  there  or  was  there  not  any  pro- 
Communist  article  in  your  magazine.  Pacific  Affairs,  while  you  were 
editor  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  would  depend  on  who  was  making  the 
definition  of  what  is  pro-Communist. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  that  the  only  answer  you  can  give  ? 

8S348— 52— pt.  9 2 


2910  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  that  is  the  necessary  answer,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  suppose  we  make  it  the  definition  advo- 
catintr  international  communism. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  1  don't  think  we  published  anything  of  that  sort. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  would  say  there  was  not  anything  like  that. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  just  to  bring  the  record  up  to  date, 
could  we  go  back  to  \nj  question? 

The  Chairman.  How  far  back  are  you  going  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  This  is  quite  a  ways  back,  Mr,  Chairman. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  can  you  say  that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 
and  you  had  no  influence  on  the  far-eastern  experts  of  the  State  De- 
partment ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  cannot  state  whether  we  did  or  not,  or  how  much. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  intend  by  the  statement  in  this  issued  state- 
ment here  of  3^ours,  to  convey  the  impression  that  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Kelations  and  you  had  not  had  any  influence  on  the  far-eastern 
experts  of  the  State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  To  my  best  understanding,  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Eelations  never  had  a  policy  of  influencing  the  formation  of  policy 
in  the  United  States  Government  through  influencing  personnel. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  Now,  will  you  attempt  to  answer  the  question :  Did 
you  intend  by  the  language  in  this  statement,  to  convey  to  the  commit- 
tee the  impression  that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  and  you  never 
had  any  influence  on  the  far-eastern  experts  of  the  State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  intended  to  convey  that  we  never  had  any  influ- 
ence that  was  the  outcome  of  a  campaign  or  policy  of  influencing  the 
State  Department. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  intend  to  convey  the  impression  that  you 
never  had  any  influence — period  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  we  had  any  influence  on  in- 
dividuals in  the  State  Department  or  not. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  intend  to  convey  the  impression  by  the 
language  which  you  used  here,  that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 
and  you  had  no  influence  on  the  far-eastern  experts  of  the  State  De- 
partment ? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  intended  to  convey  the  impression  that  we  had  no 
influence  that  was  the  result  of  a  calculated  campaign  on  our  part. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  please  leave  out  any  question  of  cal- 
culation, and  I  am  asking  you  whether  you  intended  to  convey  to  tliis 
committee  the  impression  that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  and 
you  had  no  influence  on  the  far  eastern  experts  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  my  answers  have  to  be  within  my 
competence  to  answer. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  think  it  is  not  within  your  competence  to 
answer  that  question  as  to  your  intent? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  answered  as  to  my  intent  already. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  disavow  the  intent  to  convey,  by  the  lan- 
guage which  you  used,  the  impression  that  the  IPR  and  you  had  no 
influence  on  the  far  eastern  experts  of  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  intended  to  convey  that  I  have  no  way  of  measur- 
ing whether  the  institute  had  any  influence  or  not. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Go  ahead  with  the  reading  of  your  statement,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Could  I  ask  him  a  question  there? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2911 

Mr.  Lattimore,  during  and  after  you  were  editor  of  the  Pacific  Af- 
fairs, did  you  have  any  conversations  with  any  of  the  far  eastern  ex- 
perts in  the  State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  During  and  after,  yes. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  now,  did  you  get  any  impression  from  them 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  articles  that  you  had  either  edited  or  had 
printed,  or  written  yourself,  had  any  influence  on  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  are  asking  me  to  throw  my  memory  a  long 
way  back,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  of  course,  I  am  asking  you  to  do  just  that, 
if  you  have  a  memory  about  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can  remember  discussing  this  and  that  about  the 
Far  East  many  times  with  members  of  the  Department  of  State. 

Senator  Smith.  With  a  good  many  members? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  could  not  give  you  a  precise  answer  as  to  whether 
any  article  or  publication  was  ever  referred  to,  either  one  put  out  by 
the  institute  or  one  put  out  by  somebody  else. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  you  discussed  those  articles  with  various 
men  in  the  Far  Eastern  Division  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  think  you  misunderstood  me,  Senator.  I  say 
that  I  discussed  far  eastern  matters,  and  I  don't  remember  ever  dis- 
cussing with  a  member  of  the  State  Department  any  particular  ar- 
ticle, either  one  with  which  I  had  connection  or  one  for  which  I  had 
no  responsibility. 

Senator  Smith.  With  how  many  people  in  that  Department  did 
you  discuss  far  eastern  affairs? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  find  it  impossible  to  tell  you,  Senator,  how 
many  people  I  ever  knew  in  the  Department,  much  less 

Senator  Smith.  I  did  not  ask  you  how  many  you  knew  in  the  De- 
partment. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Much  less  with  how  many  I 

The  Chairman.  Won't  you  answer  the  question  of  Senator  Smith? 
Do  3'ou  understand  tlie  question?  If  you  do  not  understand  it,  let 
us  know  and  we  will  have  it  repeated. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  question  is.  With  how  many  people  did  I  dis- 
cuss ?     And  the  answer  is,  I  have  no  way  of  telling. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  did  you  discuss  it  with  many,  or  few  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Many  or  few  is  a  subjective  variation,  and  how 
many  is  "many,"  and  how  few  is  "few"  ? 

Senator  Smith.  I  would  have  thought  that  you  had  some  idea  about 
the  difference  between  "few"  and  "many,"  but  if  you  do  not  have  any 
conception  of  that,  I  can  appreciate  that  you  probably  cannot  answer 
the  question  and  probably  do  not  want  to  answer  it.  Now,  what  I 
am  asking  you  now  is:  How  many  people  did  you  discuss  it  with 
there  ?     How  many  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know.  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  know  the  names  of  some  of  them  that  you 
did  discuss  it  with? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  I  could  probably  recollect  some  names  of  people 
with  whom  I  have  discussed  it. 

Senator  Smith.  Suppose  you  give  it  to  us. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  I  wonder  if  it  would  be  fair  to  mention  the 
names  of  some  jDeople,  and  leave  the  names  of  other  people  out  ? 


2912  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question,  if  you  will.  A  question  has 
been  propounded. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  for  all  of  them.  We  do  not  want  you 
to  leave  out  anybody;  we  do  not  want  you  to  slight  anybody. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  would  like  to  point  out  that  I  have  lived 
in  many  countries 

The  Chairman.  Now,  just  a  minute,  Mr.  Lattimore.  Just  a  min- 
ute. A  question  has  been  propounded  to  you,  and  do  you  care  to 
answer  it  ? 

Read  the  question  to  the  witness. 

(The  pending  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Fortas. 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  said  to  the  witness,  "Go  ahead  and  state  the  names." 

The  Chairman.  I  am  going  to  admonish  you  again,  when  the  wit- 
ness wants  advice  from  you,  he  will  indicate  it. 

ISIr.  Fortas.  The  witness  is  supposed  to  turn  to  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Please  conform  to  that  rule. 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  will,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  just  trying  to  make  it  plain 
to  the  Senator  who  asked  me  the  question,  that  I  am  not  trying  to  be 
evasive.  I  have  lived  in  and  met  members  of  the  State  Department 
in  many  countries.  When  I  changed  my  residence,  very  often  the 
acquaintanceship  would  be  dropped,  and  it  might  be  renewed  again 
later  on.  Consequently,  I  am  not  like  a  man  who  has  been  sitting  in 
the  same  city  all  of  his  life  and  finds  it  easy  to  remember  whom  he 
knew  in  what  year,  and  what  he  talked  about,  and  so  on. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  cannot  remember,  you  can  answer  the  Sena- 
tor by  saying  you  cannot  remember ;  but  there  is  a  distinct  question, 
very  clearly  pronounced  to  you,  as  to  who  you  discussed  it  with,  and 
name  them  all,  he  said,  that  you  can  remember.  That,  is  no  matter 
where  you  discussed  it. 

Mr.  Lvttimore.  Well,  I  have  discussed  questions  of  the  Far  East — • 
let  us  try  and  begin  at  the  top  with — I  can't  remember  his  name  now. 
Just  a  moment.  With  Mi-.  John  V.  A.  McMurray,  when  he  was  Minis- 
ter in  Peking  in  the  late  1920's  and  early  1930's.  And  I  have  discussed 
questions  of  the  Far  East  with  Mr.  Nelson  T.  Johnson,  who  was  sub- 
sequently Minister  an.d  later  Ambassador.  And  I  have  discussed  them 
with  Ambassador  Clarence  E.  Dawes,  in  Chungking.  And  I  have  dis- 
cussed them  with  Mr.  Grew  when  he  was  Ambassador  in  Tokyo.  And 
I  believe  I  also  met  and  probably  talked  about  far  eastern  questions 
with  Mr.  Dummon,  who  was  in  the  Tokyo  Embassy  at  the  same  time. 

And  tlien  in  Peking,  below  the  top  rank  there  would  be — do  you  want 
me  to  include  military  attaches  and  people  like  that? 

Senator  Smith.  My  question  was  as  to  persons  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment, connected  with  the  State  Department. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  all  of  these  so  far  are  State  Department. 

Let  me  see.  There  would  also  be  Mr.  John  Carter  Vincent.  There 
would  be  the  men — I  don't  7'emember  their  names  now — who  were  our 
consuls  in  Mukden  and  Harbin  in  1929  and  1930;  members  of  our  con- 
sulate in  Tsinsing,  especially  in  the  1920's,  and  I  can't  recall  their 
names  offliand  at  the  moment. 

And  among  people  who  were  junior  personnel  in  the  early  1930's 
in  Peking,  there  would  be  Mr.  Edmund  Clubb,  Mr.  Donald  Service. 
There  was  a  man  named — what  was  it,  Rice  or  Millet,  or  some  kind  of 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2913 

grain — it  was  Mr.  Ringwald ;  Mr.  John  Davies — there  was  Mr.  James 
Penfield ;  and  there  is  a  man  named  Landon,  I  think,  who  was  consul 
or  consul  general  in  Chungming  in  1944,  and  afterward  I  believe  he 
went  to  Korea.  And  there  was  Mr.  George  Atcheson,  and  probably  a 
lot  more,  but  they  don't  come  to  mind. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  recall  any  of  the  persons  working  here 
in  Washington  in  the  State  Department  that  you  talked  to  about  this? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  some  of  these  people  I  met  in  China  only,  and 
some  in  Washington,  and  some  both  in  China  and  in  Washington. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  now,  did  you  discuss  with  all  of  those,  and 
others,  the  articles  that  were  appearing  in  Pacific  Affairs  while  you 
were  the  editor? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  You  have  no  recollection  whatever? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  think  it  is  very  likely  that  when  I  was  out 
in  Peking,  for  instance,  a  very  small  foreign  community,  and  the  new 
issue  of  Pacific  Affairs  had  just  arrived  from  the  printer  and  been 
distributed,  that  somebody  would  say,  "There  is  a  good  number  this 
time.  I  like  that  article  by  So-and-So,"  or  something  of  that  sort. 
But  I  have  no  precise  recollection. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  have  any  recollection  whether  you  received 
any  word  either  oral  or  written,  by  anyone  in  the  State  Departmep.t 
after  the  publication  of  particular  articles? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  quite  possible,  but  I  don't  recall  any. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  not  have  thought  that  the  magazine 
Pacific  Affairs  was  a  failure,  if  it  had  not  had  some  influence  on  the 
State  Department  officials? 

Mr.  Latit]more.  I  think  I  should  point  out  at  this  moment,  Senator, 
that  Pacific  Affairs  was  not  an  American  magazine. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  whatever  it  was. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  an  international  publication  of  the  Institute 
of  Pacific  Relations,  and  I  tried  to  get  as  much  circulation  for  it  as  I 
•could  in  a  number  of  countries. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  what  languages  was  that  magazine  published? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  English. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  English  only? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Where  was  it  printed? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  printed  in 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  what  country  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Entirely  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Printed  in  the  United  States  and  mailed  out  from 
either  New  York  or  from  wherever  the  printer  was. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  proportion  of  its  circulation  was  within  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  remember.     You  could  get  those  figures. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Was  it  as  high  as  80  percent? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  doubt  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Was  it  as  high  as  75  percent  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  don't  remember  those  ratios. 

Senator  Ferguson.  He  has  not  answered  my  question,  whether  or 
not  he  would  have  considered  it  a  failure  if  it  had  not  had  some  effect 
upon  the  officials  of  the  State  Department. 


2914  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  have  considered  it  a  failure  if  it  had  not 
interested  or  if  it  had  not  been  of  interest  to  intelligent  people  working 
on  far  eastern  problems. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Were  you  trying  to  influence — you  indicate  that 
it  was  a  foreign  paper  as  well  as  United  States,  and  were  you  trying 
to  influence  the  foreign  policy  of  any  other  nation  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  then,  were  you  trying  to  influence  the 
opinion  of  the  public  of  America  along  far  eastern  affairs  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  was  not  trying  to  influence  anybody's  opinion, 
Senator.     I  was  trying  to  supply  information  to  those  interested. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  not  trying  to  influence  them  ? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  No ;  it  was  not  a  propaganda  organ,  in  any  sense. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No  articles  were  printed,  to  your  knowledge, 
to  influence  the  opinion  of  people  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  We  published  articles  of  opinion  as  well  as  articles 
of  information.  You  are  getting  into  an  area  there  of  the  difference 
between  an  author's  intent  and  an  editor's  intent. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Weil,  did  you  write  any  articles  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you,  as  a  writer,  try  to  influence  the  opinion 
oj^  the  American  public  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  didn't  try  to  influence  the  opinion  of  the  Ameri- 
can public  more  than  the  opinion  of  anybody  else  who  might  read 
the  paper. 

Senato]'  Ferguson.  Well,  did  you  try  to  influence  anj'^one's  opinion, 
and  let  us  make  it  broad  now  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly,  I  had  views  of  my  own,  and  I  mar- 
shalled my  facts  in  connection  with  my  own  views.  And  incidentally, 
my  views  proceeded  from  the  facts  and  not  from  the  facts  from  the 
views. 

Senator  Ferg^^^u^n.  Did  you  only  publish  those  facts  that  you  had 
personal  knowledge  of  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  published  facts — in  what  sense  do  you  mean  "per- 
sonal knowledge,"  Senator? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Knowing  them  from  personal  knowledge,  per- 
sonal experience. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  you  mean  not  including  something  that  I 
might  have  got  from  a  written  source  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Oh,  no.  Certainly,  I  have  often  gone  on  written 
sources. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  allow  anyone  to  write  in  the  maga- 
zine under  an  alias  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Why  was  that  done  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  very  common  practice. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  permit  any  Communists 
to  write  under  an  alias? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  try  to  find  out  whether  any  per- 
son who  wrote  under  an  alias  was  or  was  not  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  that  question  ever  arose. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Not  even  in  your  mind  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2915 

Mr.  Latttmore.  Not  even  in  my  mind. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  were  not  much  concerned,  then,  with  the 

Siuestion  of  communism  while  you  were  with  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
xehitions,  is  that  a  fair  statement? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  1930's? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  any  time  while  you  were  with  the  insti- 
tute. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  you  should  draw  a  line  there,  Sen- 
ator  

Senator  Ferguson.  You  draw  the  line. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Between  when  I  was  an  editor  and  when 


Senator  Ferguson.  When  you  were  an  editor,  yovi  were  not  con- 
cerned with  the  question  of  communism  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  1930's,  when  I  was  editing  that  magazine, 
Senator,  subjects  like  the  Chinese  Communists,  and  so  on,  were  topics 
of  general  interest,  and  I  tried  to  get  information  on  those,  but  I  never 
published  an  article  that  I  believed  to  be  by  a  Chinese  Communist 
or  promoting  the  Chinese  Communists'  cause. 

However,  in  the  1930's,  if  it  had  been  possible  to  get  an  article  by  a 
Chinese  Communist  giving  the  Chinese  Communist  point  of  view, 
that  would  have  been  such  a  news  scoop  that  I  might  well  have  pub- 
lished it,  with  an  identification  of  just  what  it  was. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  would,  then,  have  identified  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  at  that  time,  in  the  1930's,  that  you  are 
talking  about,  believe  that  the  Communists  of  China  were  agrarian 
reformers,  or  under  the  international  communism  from  Moscow  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  never  believed  that  the  Chinese  Communists 
were  merely  agrarian  reformers.  I  have  always  believed  that  they 
were  right  straight  down-the-line  Communists.  I  would  like  to  qual- 
ify that,  however,  by  pointing  out  that  for  many  years  the  program 
of  the  Chinese  Communists  was  based  on  winning  a  following  amongst 
an  agrarian  population,  I  would  like  to  point  out,  in  connection  with 
the  ideological  identity  between  the  Chinese  Communists  and  the 
Kremlin  Communists,  that  for  many  years  the  Chinese  Communists 
were  working  in  an  isolated  part  of  China  where  the  belief  among 
many  experts  is  that  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  have  constant 
liaison  with  Moscow. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  did  understand  this  Communist  prob- 
lem, and  you  knew  the  difference  between  the  Moscow  Communists 
and  those  that  might  be  just  agrarian  reformers? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  that  I  thought  any  Communists  were 
just  agrarian  reformers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  knew  the  purpose  of  the  Communists  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore,  Well,  the  Chinese  Communists,  as  far  as  I  have 
known,  have  always  claimed  that  they  were  straight  Kremlin  Com- 
munists, 

Senator  Ferguson.  They  have  never  contended  that  they  were  just 
agrarian  reformers,  have  they? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Watkins.  Might  I  ask  this  question :  Did  you  ever  chal- 
lenge the  Communists,  or  write  an  editorial  attacking  communism  and 
exposing  it  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  to  the  world, 
through  this  magazine  ? 


2916  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  was  not  an  expert  on  communism,  even 
Chinese  communism,  although  I  lived  in  China,  and  I  published  a 
number  of  articles  very  hostile  to  the  Soviet  Union  and  communism, 
by  others,  in  Pacific  Affairs. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  do  not  remember  about  when  those  articles 
were  published? 

(Brief  recess.) 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  witness  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimoke.  Let's  see;  I  can  remember  William  Henry 
Chamberlin. 

Senator  Watkins.  I  said,  your  opinions  were  your  own  opinions, 
your  own  editorials  that  you  wrote? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  I  said,  I  was  not  writing  on  the  subject  of 
communism. 

Senator  Watkins.  That  is  what  I  want  to  find  out,  if  you  ever 
wrote  an  editorial  on  communism  and  exposed  it  and  pointed  out  any 
of  the  dangers  of  communism  to  the  free  world. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  editing  a  magazine  with  all  kinds  of  people 
contributing,  and  I  published  anti-Communist  opinions.  However, 
I  was  not  an  expert  on  the  subject  myself,  and  I  did  not  write  on 
the  subject  myself. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  did  write  many  editorials  and  wrote  j^our 
own  opinions,  as  you  stated  a  moment  ago  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  many  editorials.  I  wrote  articles.  I  think 
most  of  the  articles  that  I  wrote  in  Pacific  Affairs  were  on  my  own 
specialt}',  which  was  Inner  Mongolia. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  say  you  did  publish  some  articles  that  were 
anti- Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  could  name  those  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  can  name  some:  William  Henry  Cham- 
berlin ;  Harold  Isaacs,  a  man  who  was  the  former  Dutch  Ambassador, 
Dutch  Minister  in  China,  Oudendyk,  0-u-d-e-n-d-y-k. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  list  a  number  of  such  writers  further  on  in 
your  statement,  do  you  not,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  do ;  yes. 

Senator  Watkins.  Did  you  ever  write  on  the  subject  of  communism 
in  your  editorials? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  I  ever  wrote  on  the  subject  of 
communism  as  such  in  my  editorials. 

Senator  Watkins.  Did  you  recognize  at  that  time  that  there  was 
a  danger  in  communism  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  recognized  that  communism  was  one  of  the 
important  subjects  in  the  Far  East. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  did  not  answer  my  question.  I  asked  you 
if  you  recognized  that  there  was  a  danger  in  communism  to  the 
free  Avorld. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  in  the  sense  that  we  recognize  it  now ;  no. 

Senator  Watkins.  In  other  words,  you  did  not  recognize  it  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  I  thought  in  the  1930's  that  communism  was 
an  extremely  important  subject  in  the  Far  East,  but  I  did  not  have 
the  same  understanding  of  Communist  conspiracy  in  long-range 
methods  that  I  have  today. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2917 

Senator  Watkins.  Yet  you  have  traveled  extensively  in  Kussia  and 
in  Asiatic  countries  where  communism  was  rampant  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir ;  I  had  not  traveled  extensively  in  Russia. 
I  had  traveled  in  China,  but  had  never  been  in  Communist  territory 
or  Communist-infiltrated  territory  in  Cliina  throughout  my  stay  in 
China  until  almost  the  very  end. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  to  this  committee  that 
you  did  not  study  comnumism  or  the  writings  that  were  put  out  in 
connection  with  it  or  the  articles  and  books  written  by  Communists? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  made  no  special  study  of  communism. 

Senator  Watkins.  I  have  a  further  question  here  with  reference 
to  whether  or  not  the  State  Department  relied  upon  this  information 
or  was  influenced  by  it.  We  had  a  witness  before  us,  Mr.  Lattimore, 
I  think  it  was  Dr.  Fleugel,  who  said  that  they  went  to  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Relations  publications  to  get  information  because  there  were 
very  few  other  sources  from  which  they  could  get  information  on 
the  Far  East. 

Do  you  care  to  comment  on  that,  since  you  are  a  student  of  the  Far 
East? 

jNIr.  Lattimore.  There  were  very  few  in  that  period.  There  were 
very  few  publications  devoted  exclusively  to  the  Far  East.  There 
were,  of  course,  articles  on  far-eastern  subjects  that  came  out  in  maga- 
zines like  Foreign  Affairs  and  in  publications  devoted  to  international 
relations  in  general,  such  as  the  publications  of  the  Foreign  Policy 
Association,  but  I  believe  that  in  those  years,  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 
lection, the  publications  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  were  the 
only  ones  that  not  only  specialized  on  the  Far  East  but  were  confined 
to  the  Far  East. 

Senator  Watkins.  And  you  would  know  as  a  matter  of  fact  from 
your  general  knowledge  of  what  was  being  published,  written  and 
published  on  the  Far  East,  that  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations 
articles  were  probably  about  the — well,  they  comprised  the  major 
part  of  literature  at  that  time  on  that  subject  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  wouldn't  know  whether  they  comprised  the  major 
part  of  the  literature,  I  think  they  comprise  the  important  part. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  are  an  expert  on  far-eastern  affairs;  you 
would  naturally  keep  in  touch  with  these  publications,  all  articles 
written?  It  would  be  part  of  your  job  to  read  them  and  analyze 
them? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Even  in  those  days,  Senator,  the  volume  coming 
out  was  too  much  for  one  man.  You  see,  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Relations  dealt  with  everything  from  Asiatic  Siberia  down  to  Indo- 
nesia, and  even  in  those  days  no  one  man  could  possibly  be  an  expert 
on  all  the  countries  comprised  within  that  enormous  geographical 
range. 

Senator  Watkins.  Well,  I  understand  you  probably  could  not  be 
acquainted  with  all  of  them,  but  it  would  seem  to  me  that  having  taken 
on  the  position  of  editor  of  this  magazine  that  dealt  in  foreign  affairs 
and  studied  those  problems,  that  presented  facts  in  connection  with 
them,  that  you  or  your  staff  would  survey  all  of  the  current  articles 
and  the  literature  on  the  subject  for  review  and  for  presentation  to 
keep  your  readers  informed  of  what  was  going  on  in  the  Far  East. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Let  me  tell  you  there.  Senator,  the  method  of 
editing  was  rather  different  from  that.     I  was  only  one  j^erson  and 


2918  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

usually  had  no  help  except  a  secretary.  So  the  method  of  editing 
and  editorial  evaluation,  whether  an  article  was  worth  publication 
or  not,  was  by  circulating  tj^pescript  copies  of  articles  to  all  countries. 

You  see,  this  magazine  came  out  only  once  in  3  months,  so  the  rate 
of  publication  was  rather  leisurely.  If,  for  instance,  we  had  an  article 
by  an  Englishman  affecting  Dutch  Indonesia,  we  would  send  that 
article  to  somebody  in  Holland  as  well  as  to  people  in  America  inter- 
ested in  the  subject  and  similarly  with  all  of  the  questions.  They  were, 
practically  all  the  material  in  Pacific  Affairs,  had  extensive  prepubli- 
cation  circulation  and  was  seen  by  a  number  of  people. 

If  any  questions  were  raised,  they  were  always  referred  back  to 
the  author. 

Senator  O'Oonor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  may  continue  your  statement. 
I  think  you  were  just  at  the  latter  part  of  the  second  paragraph  on  the 
first  page. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  still  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  paragraph, 
so  if  I  may  resume  so  that  readers  will  not  lose  track  of  the  sense ■ 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  have  been  over  the  first  part  three  or  four 
times,  the  "assiduously  conveyed." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  the  sentence  hasn't  been  finished  yet. 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  would  prefer  to  go  back  and  continue  that? 

I  wonder  whether  we  could  withhold  our  questioning  until  the  whole 
paragraph  is  read? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  would  accord  with  my  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject, Senator. 

The  impression  has  been  assiduously  conveyed  in  your  proceedings 
that  I  am  a  Communist  or  a  Communist  sympathizer  or  dupe;  that  I 
master-minded  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Kelations;  that  the  Institute 
of  Pacific  Relations  and  I  master-minded  the  far  eastern  experts  of  the 
State  Department ;  and  that  the  State  Department  "sold"  China  to  the 
Russians.    Every  one  of  these  is  false — utterly  and  completely  false. 

Senator  Ferguson.  He  has  finished  that  sentence,  and  before  he  gets 
to  the  next  one,  could  I  ask  a  question  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Ferguson. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  claim  that  you  know  and  say  that  the 
State  Department  sold  China  to  the  Russians — that  is,  you  have  per- 
sonal knowledge  that  that  is  utterly  and  completely  false,  or  are  you 
talking  abofit  your  own 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  talking  about  a  dependent  clause  of  this  sen- 
tence beginning,  "The  impression  has  been  assiduously  conveyed  that," 
and  so  forth. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  the  State  Department  sold  China  to  the 
Russians  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  not  conveyed  by  me.  But  not  conveyed  by  me, 
and  not  believed  by  me. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Might  I  ask  a  clarifying  question? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  have  any  doubt  about  the  Russian  domina- 
tion of  China  today? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  that  is  a  very  controversial  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then  you  do  have  doubt  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Some  people  believe.  I  would  like  to  state  my 
opinion  in  a  moment,  but  I  would  like  to  state  it  in  a  balanced  way. 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2919 

Mr.  SoTJRWiNE.  I  was  attempting  to  clarify,  not  to  bring  forth  a 
lengthy  statement.    If  it  does  not  clarify,  I  would  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Some  people  maintain  that  China  is  controlled  in 
each  and  every  detail  by  the  Russians.  Others  believe  that  China  is 
controlled  by  the  Chinese  Communists,  but  that  the  Chinese  Com- 
munists are  allies  rather  than  subordinates  of  the  Russians.  I  would 
incline  to  the  second  opinion. 

Mr.  SoTJRWiNE.  I  am  afraid  the  question  did  not  help  clarify.  Sen- 
ator Ferguson. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  could  ask  a  number  of  questions  right  there, 
but  I  think  I  will  pass  them. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  proceed,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Because  I  think  it  is  contradictory  to  what  he 
said,  that  they  were  Communists  dominated  by  Russia,  and  I  will  go 
back  and  take  the  other  statement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  point,  Senator,  I  think  I  should 

Senator  Ferguson.  Clarify? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Clarify  myself. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  wish  you  would. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  spoke  of  my  belief  that  the  Chinese  Communists 
consider  themselves  completely — ideologically  completely — in  con- 
formity with  Russian  ideas  of  communism.  That  is  a  question  of 
ideological  conformity,  and  not  a  question  of  operational  control. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  of  any  Communists  that  are  actu- 
ally Communists,  as  you  claim  they  are,  that  are  not  under  the  control 
of  the  Communist  Party  of  Russia,  the  Kremlin? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  believe  that  in  the  case  of  the  Chinese 
Communists,  owing  to  questions  of  time  and  distance  and  lack  of  per- 
sonnel, and  so  forth,  it  would  be  extremely  difficult  for  the  Russians 
to  have  operational  control  of  every  detail  of  the  C'linese  Communist 
action  in  China  even  if  they  wanted  it  and  even  if  the  Chinese  Com- 
munists were  willing  to  concede  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  do  not  believe  that  Russia  is  domi- 
nating the  war  in  Korea  as  far  as  the  Chinese  are  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Lattiimore.  If  I  knew  the  answer  to  that  question,  Senator,  I 
would  be  in  Wall  Street  making  a  lot  of  money. 

Senator  Ferguson.  In  what  way  would  you  be  making  money  out 
of  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  would  be  extremely  valuable  information 
to  know  exactly  who  is  controlling  how  much. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Who  do  you  think  would  pay  you  for  that 
opinion  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  could  probably  go  to  the  market. 

Ssnator  Ferguson.  Would  j'ou  not  say  that  that  was  the  prevalent 
opinion  in  the  United  States— that  they  are  dominating  the  action  of 
the  Communists  of  China  in  Korea? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  the  prevalent  opinion 
or  not.  I  know  that  many  well-informed  people  in  England  and 
India  believe  that  the  initiative  there  is  held  by  the  Chinese  rather 
than  by  the  Russians. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  that  your  opinion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  know  enough  about  it  to  decide  either 
one  way  or  the  other.  That  is  why  I  say  if  I  did  know  I  think  it  would 
be  useful  knowledge. 


2920  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  yon  would  think  that  Russia  would 
classify  as  a  neutral  as  far  as  Korea  is  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  question  itself  is  somewhat  of  a  non  sequitur ; 
isn't  it,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  asking  you.  Would  you  classify  it  as  a 
neutral  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly  not. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  do  have  some  opinion  on  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  an  opinion,  but  not  a  precise  opinion  that 
1  would  go  to  bat  for.    I  recognize  the  limits  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  ask  two  questions  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr,  SouRwiNE.  Did  the  State  Department,  the  American  Stat© 
Department,  make  the  policy  which  the  American  Government  fol- 
lowed with  respect  to  China  over  the  last  7  or  8  years? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  enough  about  it  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Sour- 
wine,  how  far  it  was  made  by  the  State  Department,  how  far  by  the 
White  House,  how  far  by  the  advice  of  the  armed  services,  how  far 
perhaps  by  the  Treasury,  how  far  by  the  Congress. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  think  that  hindsight  indicates  that  there 
were  any  mistakes  in  the  policy  which  was  followed  by  this  country 
with  regard  to  China  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  make  a  distinction  there,  Mr.  Sourwine. 
Ill  fact,  I  try  to  make  it  later  in  my  statement,  between  mistakes  and 
lack  of  success. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Very  good.  Could  we  go  ahead  with  the  statement^ 
Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Except  for  this  one  question.  Mr.  Lattimore, 
you  have  indicated  that  you  were  not  entirely  informed  as  to  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  the  different  agencies  or  departments  or  individ- 
uals. May  I  ask  if  you,  during  that  time,  had  any  connection  with 
the  State  Department  or  the  White  House? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  a  policy  making? 

Senator  O'Conor.  In  any  capacity. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  connection  other  than  that  of  an  ordinary  citi- 
zen, probably  as  a  matter  of  fact  less  connection  than  any  far-eastern 
representative  in  this  country. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Were  you  prior  to  that  time  or  at  that  time 
having  any  connection  with  the  State  Department  or  the  White 
House  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  never  been  stationed  in  the  employ  of  either 
the  State  Department  or  the  White  House  with  the  distinction,  which 
is  a  technical  distinction,  but  perhaps  I  had  better  mention  it,  that 
when  I  was  on  a  mission  in  Japan,  which  was  a  White  House  mission, 
the  pay  checks  for  some  reason — some  bureaucratic  reason  that  is 
beyond  my  ken — were  sent  out  by  the  State  Department  rather  than 
by  the  White  House. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Did  you  occupy  any  space  in  either  the  State 
Department  or  the  ^^Hiite  House  or  any  adjunct  of  them? 

]N[r.  Lattijmore.  Not  by  right.    This  question  has  come  up  before. 

Senator  O'Conor.  At  all? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  dealt  with  it  later  in  my  statement,  but 
I  don't  mind  going  into  it  now  if  you  like.    At  one  time  when  I  was 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2921 

working  for  Chiang  Kai-shek  and  when  my  functions  were  largely 
liaison  functions  between  Chang  Kai-shek  and  President  Roosevelt, 
I  was  back  in  tliis  country,  and  Mr.  Lauchlin  Currie,  who  was  the 
executive  assistant  to  President  Roosevelt,  who  was  in  charge  of  most 
of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  interest  in  the  China  problem,  offered  me  the  cour- 
tesy, not  the  right,  of  the  use  of  a  room  adjoining  his  own  office. 

That  room  was — there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  confusion  about  it 
because  that  room  was  in  the  Old  State,  War,  and  Navy  Building. 
The  question  was  raised  whether  I  had  an  office  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment. I  confess  I  wasn't  bright  enough  to  tumble  to  it  right  away 
because  that  building  housed,  besides  the  State  Department,  a  large 
part  of  the  Executive  Offices  of  the  President  and  also  the  Bureau  of 
the  Budget.  It  was  a  multioffice  building.  But  I  did  have  the  use 
of  an  office  that  was  physicallj^  located  in  that  building  but  was  not 
regarded  by  anybody  concerned  as  a  part  of  the  State  Department. 

Senator  O'Conor.  "Will  you  then  proceed  to  your  statement,  Mr. 
Lattimore,  please  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  might  just  ask  one  question  here.  Is  it  a  fair 
assumption,  then,  that  while  you  were  editor  of  the  Pacific  Affairs 
the  State  Department  was  avoiding  your  judgment  or  your  opinion 
as  an  expert  in  the  Far  East  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  during  the  period  I  was  editing  Pacific  Affairs 
the  State  Department  was  avoiding? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  is  that  a  fair  assumption  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Avoiding  what  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Your 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  opinion  or  avoiding  Pacific  Affairs? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Your  opinion. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  One  has  to  draw  a  delicate  line  between  disregard 
and  avoidance. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Avoidance. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  think  the  State  Department  was  disregard- 
ing your  opinion  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Let  him  answer. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Were  they  avoiding  getting  in  touch  with  you  as 
an  expert? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  so.  Of  course,  the  manner  and  atti- 
tude of  the  State  Department  in  those  days  was  rather  top-lofty  and 
full  of  hauteur,  so  I  suppose  the  mere  civilian  crawling  on  the  ground 
might  feel  that  he  was  being  avoided,  but  I  don't  know  whether  it 
would  be  a  just  accusation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  feel  that  you  were  being  avoided  ? 

Mr.  Latttmore.  I  didn't  feel  that  I  was  being  regarded. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  are  you  familiar  with  exhibit  229 
introduced  in  the  public  record  of  this  hearing  on  August  23,  1951, 
being  a  letter  from  Mr.  Sumner  Welles  to  Mr.  Edward  C.  Carter, 
in  which  JNIr.  Welles  stated  that — 

While  for  obvious  reasons  the  Department  of  State  has  necessarily  adopted 
the  practice  of  refraining  from  enforcing  or  sponsoring  any  particular  private 
organization,  I  am  glad  to  say  that  in  the  opinion  of  officers  of  the  Department 
who  are  especially  familiar  with  the  activities  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Rela- 
tions the  publications  of  the  institute  have  been  of  interest  and  value,  and  the 
institute  has  been  making  a  substantial  contribution  to  the  development  of  an 
informed  public  opinion. 


2922  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Did  you  have  that  in  mind  at  all  in  the  answers  you  have  just  given? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  didn't  have  that  in  mind.  Now  that  you  read  it 
out  it  seems  to  me  a  sort  of  standard  formula  that  any  Government 
office  sents  out  to  any  private  organization  that  sends  its  publica- 
tions and  hopes  for  a  pat  on  the  head.  They  didn't  want  to  give  in 
their  public  relations  any  idea  of  scorning  anybody. 

Mr.  SoIIRw^NE.  I  apologize  for  that  diversion,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  O'Coxcj.  All  right.  Now  the  next  paragraph,  Mr.  Latti- 
more. 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  Concerning  my  reputation  and  character,  you  have 
now  for  many  months  been  publishing  to  the  world  an  incredible  mass 
of  unsubstantiated  accusations,  allegations,  and  insinuations. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Who  does  the  witness  mean  by  "you"  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  May  I  ask,  Mr.  Sourwine,  it  will  expedite  if  we 
read  the  entire  paragraph. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  right. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Will  you  continue  on  ? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  For  months  a  long  line  of  witnesses  has  set  me  in 
the  midst  of  a  murky  atmosphere  of  pretended  plots  and  conspiracies 
so  that  it  is  now  practically  impossible  for  my  fellow  citizens  to  follow 
in  detail  the  specific  refutation  of  each  lie  and  smear. 

Mr.  SouR'sviNE,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  who  do  you  mean  by  "you"  as  used 
in  the  first  line  of  that  paragraph?    Yon  mean  this  committee? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  By  ""you"  I  mean  the  committee  was  responsible 
for  conducting  and  publishing  these  proceedings.  Later  on  in  my 
statement  I  raise  the  point  that  I  do  not  know  whether  some  of  the 
initial  responsibility  is  that  of  the  committee  or  that  of  its  staff. 

Senator  Watkins.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  point  out  that  apparently 
there  is  no  doubt  about  whom  he  means.  He  starts  out  in  the  first 
sentence,  "Senators."    He  is  talking  to  us. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  I  wanted  to  ask  the  witness,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
whether  to  his  knowledge  the  committee  has  published  anything  except 
the  hearings  which  have  been  held. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  these  hearings  consisted  of  anything  except 
the  testimony  of  witnesses  under  oath  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  SourSvine.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  something  to  say  later  about  the  manner  in 
which  that  testimony  has  been  elicited  and  presented. 

I  should,  in  fact,  be  less  than  frank  if  I  did  not  confess  that  I  see  no 
hope  that  your  committee  will  fairly  appraise  the  facts ;  and  I  believe 
I  owe  it  to  you  to  state  the  reasons. 

Mr,  Sourwine.  Do  you  mean  by  that,  sir,  to  charge  that  the  com- 
mittee is  hopelessly  biased  ? 

Mr.  Lallimore.  I  give,  I  say  here,  that  I  owe  it  to  you  to  state  the 
reasons. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  question  is,  What  do  you  mean  ?  Do  you  mean 
to  charge  that  the  committee  is  hopelessly  biased  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2923 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  I  mean  that  I  am  going  to  state  the  reasons  for 
which  I  believe  that ;  that  I  have  no  hope  that  this  committee  will 
fairly  appraise  the  facts. 

Mr.  SouRwiisrE.  By  saying  that  you  have  no  hope  that  this  commit- 
tee will  fairly  appraise  the  facts,  do  you  mean  to  charge  that  the  com- 
mittee is  hopelessly  biased  against  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimgre.  As  I  try  to  make  clear  later  in  the  statement,  I 
don't  know ,  I  am  in  no  position  to  know  how  much  of  this  responsi- 
bility is  divided  between  the  committee  and  its  staff. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore.  what  you  do  in  that  sentence  is  to 
charge  this  committee  with  bad  faith.    Is  that  what  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  stating  here  my  own  lack  of  hope  that  this 
committee  would  fairly  appraise. 

Senator  O'Coxor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  Senator  Smith  asked  you  a  simple 
question,  whether  you  do  or  do  not  make  such  charge. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  it's  lack  of  faith  or  prejudice, 
Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  You  say  "*  *  *  I  see  no  hope  that  your  com- 
mittee will  fairly  appraise  the  facts." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  if  we  would  fairly  appraise  the  facts,  you 
M'ould  say  we  would  be  acting  in  good  faith,  if  we  did  fairly  appraise 
the  facts  ?    You  say  we  would  act  in  good  faith ;  would  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly. 

Senator  Smith.  Now  then,  you  say,  therefore,  if  according  to  your 
reasoning  as  stated  here  that  we  were  not  fairly  appraising  the  facts 
that  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  we  are  acting  in  bad  faith ;  is  that 
what  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  base — I  give  my  reasons,  later  on. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  not  asking  for  reasons;  I  am  asking  about 
that  sentence. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Is  it  not  possible  to  give  a  categorical  answer  ? 

Senator  Smith.  Not  the  reason,  the  meaning  of  those  words. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  there  is  a  difference  between  bad  faith 
and  prejudgment. 

Mr.  SouRAviNE.  Are  you  attempting  to  make  a  technical  distinc- 
tion between  bias  and  prejudice? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  minute ;  he  ought  to  be  permitted  to  com- 
plete his  answer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  base  this  statement  here  largely  on  the  fact  that 
the  chairman  of  this  committee  at  a  time  that  the  hearings  are  still  in 
progress  and  before  all  the  evidence  is  in  has  stated  in  print  in  a  pub- 
lished interview  as  his  "curbstone  opinion"  that  the  IPR  originally 
was  an  organization  with  laudable  motives.  It  was  taken  over  by 
Communist  design  and  made  a  vehicle  for  attempted  control  and  con- 
ditioning of  American  thinking  and  American  policy  with  regard  to 
the  Far  East. 

It  was  also  used  for  espionage  purposes  to  collect  and  channel  infor- 
mation of  interest  or  value  to  the  Russian  Communists.  That  was, 
in  my  opinion 

Senator  O'Conor.  Will  you  just  identify  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  the  United  States  News  and  World — it's 
quoted  later  in  my  statement.  United  States  News  and  World  Re- 
port of  this  city,  and  the  date  is  November  16,  1951. 


2924  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  inquire  at  this  point? 
Would  it  interrupt  Senator  Smith? 

I  would  simply  like  to  inquire,  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  know  that  at 
the  time  the  chairman  made  that  statement  this  committee  had  taken 
five  volumes  of  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea,  Mr.  Sourwine,  of  how  much  the 
committee  had  scooped  up  or  what  it  scooped  it  up  in,  but  I  am  aware 
that  the  hearings  are  not  complete,  that  this  is  a  prejudgment  in  a 
hearing  that  is  still  under  process  where  most  of  the  accused  have  not 
yet  been  heard. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  mean,  Mr.  Lattimore,  to  imply  your  feel- 
ing that  the  chairman  of  the  committee  had  no  right  to  form  for  him- 
self a  personal  opinion  as  to  what  the  testimony  up  to  that  point 
indicated  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  am  merely  pointing  out  that  when 
the  chairman  of  this  committee  makes  a  public  statement  of  this  kind 
in  a  publication  that  goes  to  many  thousands  of  people  and  may,  there- 
fore, influence  public  opinion  while  the  hearing  is  still  in  process,  it 
deprives  me  of  hope  that  the  committee  will  fairly  appraise  the  facts. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  were  you  taking  this  statement 
of  what  you  read  of  the  chairman  as  a  personal  one  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  taking  it  as  a  statement  on  this  whole  inquiry 
of  which  I  am  a  part. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  it  be  possible  that  evidence  in  this  com- 
mittee does  show  exactly  what  the  chairman  said?  Leave  yourself 
out  of  it.     I  am  talking  about  the  other  evidence  not  concerning  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  mean  accusatory  evidence,  some  of  it  rather 
obviously  biased  and  prejudiced  with  no  clarification  from  the  many 
defendants  yet  in  the  picture?  No,  I  don't  think  it's  possible  to 
make  a  fair  appraisal  under  those  circumstances. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  say  that  if  seven  or  eight  witnesses 
who  wrote  for  IPH  had  appeared  in  this  room  and  when  asked  the 
question  at  the  time  that  they  wrote  as  to  whether  or  not  they  were  or 
were  not  Communists  and  they  refused  to  answer  on  the  ground  that 
it  might  tend  to  incriminate  them  after  there  was  evidence  in  the 
record  that  they  were  Communists ;  that  this  IPR  then  had  been  pene- 
trated by  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  saying  here 

Senator  Ferguson.  Answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  I  see  no  hope 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  not  asking  you  what  you  see. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  the  committee  will  fairly  appraise  the  facts 
as  they  regard  me. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Answer  my  question.  With  seven  or  eight  wit- 
nesses testifying  as  I  have  said,  would  you  say  it  would  be  a  fair  state- 
ment by  the  chairman  that  it  had  been  penetrated  by  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  come  to  the  question  of  these  witnesses 
later  in  my  statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Can  you  answer  my  questions  ? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  At  the  moment  I  would  say  that  it  is  a  biased  and 
prejudiced  action  to  make  a  public  statement  of  this  kind  from  such 
a  position  of  responsibility  as  the  chairman  of  this  committee  at  any 
time  before  all  the  evidence  is  in,  including  the  rebuttal  evidence. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2925 

'  Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  have  made  the  statement 
that  there  was  not  any  Communist  influence  in  this.  Do  you  not 
think  it  would  have  been  well  for  you  to  hold  your  opinion  until  all 
the  evidence  was  in? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Excuse  me,  Senator,  the  discussion  up  to  tliis 
point  has  not  been  about  whether  there  was  any  Communist  influence 
in  such  a  vague  thing  as  "in  all  this"  or  "in  this,"  I  forget  your  exact 
terms.  The  discussion  has  been  about  Pacific  Affairs,  which  I  edited, 
and  about  my  responsibility  for  that. 

Senator  Fergusox.  You  are  not  named  in  the  United  States  Reports, 
are  you?  Your  name  was  not  used  in  relation  to  this  sentence  that 
you  read  ? 

Mr.  Latt'imore.  As  one  of  those  who  for  the  first  time  in  something 
like  8  months  is  being  given  an  opportunity  to  say  something  in  public 
for  himself,  I  think  I  am  entitled  to  make  that  statement,  Senator. 

Senator  Fergusox.  But  you  were  named  in  this  statement? 

jSIr.  Latitmore.  No.  I  was  not  named. 

Senator  Ferguson.  In  relation  to  the  sentence 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  not  named,  but  the  statement  which  I  am 
quoting  is  one  of  a  kind  to  implicate  anybody  concerned  with  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Relations. 

Senator  Fergusox.  Why  did  you  adopt  that  sentence  as  meaning 
you  TA-hen  there  was  other  testimony  in  the  record  showing  that  Com- 
munists had  penetrated  the  IPR? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  simply  referring  to  a  statement  made 
while  an  investigation  is  still  in  process  which  I  consider  a  prejudicial 
statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes,  but  you  are  criticizing  the  Chair  for  mak- 
ing a  statement  when  there  was  evidence  in  this  record  showing  that 
Communists  had  penetrated.  I  am  leaving  you  out  of  the  question 
entirely,  that  Communists  had  penetrated  the  IPR.  You  are  criti- 
cizing the  chairman's  statement  of  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  see  the  justification,  Senator,  for  such  a 
statement  in  characterization  of  the  whole  xAien  the  evidence  applies 
to  only  a  part.  This  statement  does  not  say  in  part  or  as  far  as  the 
hearings  have  gone,  or  without  prejudice  to  those  who  may  be  innocent, 
or  anything  of  that  kind.     There  is  no  reservation  in  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  that  that  statement  indicates  that 
everyone  co)inected  with  tlie  IPR  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  statement  means  exactly  what  it  says. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Does  it  say  that? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  That  Senator  McCarran  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  was  taken  over  by  Communist  design  and  made  a  vehicle  and  so 
forth  and  that  it  was  also  used  for  espionage  purposes.  The  fact 
that  some  individuals  may  have  refused  to  testify  whether  they  were 
ever  Communists  is  thus  creating  a  belief  in  any  reasonable  mind 
that  they  probably  were  at  one  time  Communists  or  may  still  be 
Communists  is  still  not  evidence  that  they  took  over  the  institute 
or  that  they  controlled  it  or  that  they  used  it  for  conveying  informa- 
tion to  Soviet  Russia. 

Senator  Watkins.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  understand  that  this  is  a 
seven-man  committee,  do  you  not  ? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

88348— 52— pt.  9 3 


2926  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Senator  Watkins.  And  that  the  chairman  obviously  was  not  try- 
ing to  speak  for  anybody  but  himself.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned  I 
am  trying  to  keep  my  mind  open  on  this  question,  and  it  does  not 
help  any  for  you  to  come  along  and  make  charges  like  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  appreciate  that. 

Senator  Smith.  Was  there  any  question  that  Field  was  a  Com- 
munist ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  he  has  refused  to  testify,  hasn't  he  ? 

Senator  Smith.  I  thought  he  admitted. 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know ;  is  it  in  the  record  ? 

Senator  Smith.  He  had  a  Communist  demonstration  before  the 
White  House,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  what  the  record  has  in  that  respect, 
Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  Have  you  read  all  this  record  now,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  read  most  of  it  once.  Some  of  the  more 
recent  testimony  that  hasn't  been  printed  I  haven't  read  yet. 

Senator  Smith.  Could  you  reach  any  conclusion  if  you  did  not  have 
any  interest  in  this  matter,  the  same  as  Senator  McCarran,  as  far  as 
it  has  gone? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  ]My  primary  conclusion  on  reading  the  record,  as 
I  state  precisely  later  on,  is  that  the  record  shows  that  no  witness 
has  been  subjected  to  examination,  much  less  cross-examination,  to 
test  his  veracity  or  the  validity  of  his  evidence. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  uaderstand  that  this  is  a  trial  or  it  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  grand  jury  procedure?     You  know  the  difference? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry  I  don't. 

Senator  Smith.  You  know  that  a  grand  jury  proceeding  is  one  in 
which  you  are  trying  to  get  facts  on  which  to  base  a  charge.  This  is 
a  grand  jury.  In  a  trial  you  say,  "This  man  is  accused  of  being" 
guilty.  Is  he  innocent  or  guilty?"  You  see  a  distinction,  I  know, 
between  those.  You  understand  that  this  was  an  inquiry  in  the 
nature  of  a  grand  jury  proceeding  to  see  what  are  the  facts  on  which, 
charges  might  be  based.  I  guess  your  counsel  will  agree  with  that 
distinction. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  wouldn't  even  an  all-powerful  and  care- 
ful grand  jury  be  somewliat  interested  in  the  quality  of  its  witnesses? 

Senator  Smith.  Absolutely,  but  you  cannot  do  everything  in  one 
hearing  or  1  day  or  for  that  matter  1  year. 

Mr.  Fortas.  Senator,  could  Ave  have  a  recess? 

I\Ir.  SouRwixE.  C^ould  I  have  just  one  question  to  tie  up  that  para- 
grapli  and  then  go  to  the  recess? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  I  thi]ik  tlio  question  has  been  asked  before,  but  not 
directly  answered.  When  you  said  that  you  saw  no  hope  that  this 
committee  Avould  fairly  appraise  the  facts,  did  you  mean  to  charge 
that  the  committee  is  biased? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  question  has  been  asked  in  at  least 
two  or  three  forms  already.  INIr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  think  it  has.    Will  you  answer  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  feeliug  T  expressed  as  clearly  as  possible  in  the 
words  I  have  here,  simply  that  I  see  no  hope  that  this  committee  will 
fairly  appraise  the  facts. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2927 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  make  a  technical  distinction  between  in- 
ability to  appraise  the  facts  fairly  and  being  biased  ? 

Mr.  Lattisioke.  Those  aren't  the  only  two  alternatives,  Mr.  Sour- 
wine. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  Do  3'on  make  a  technical  distinction  between  those 
two  alternatives? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  not  make  a  technical  distinction  between 
those  two  alternatives  only  when  they  are  not  the  only  alternatives 
that  apply  to  this  instance. 

Mr.  SouRWiXE.  Do  j^ou  make  a  technical  distinction  between  those 
and  other  alternatives? 

Mr.  LATTi:\roRE.  1  will  say  that  my  statement  is  primarily  based  on 
the  impression  that  I  have  from  a  reading  of  the  proceedings  as  they 
have  thus  far  been  published  of  a  general  attitude  of  minds  being  made 
up  in  advance. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  not  think  that  being  biased  and  being  un- 
able fairly  to  appraise  the  facts  are  substantially  the  same  thing  (  Do 
you  want  to  make  a  distinction  between  them? 

Mr.  Lattijiiore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  am  no  scholar  of  philosophy. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  want  to  make  a  distinction  between  them? 
Do  you  want  to  make  a  distinction  here  between  being  biased  and 
being  unable  fairl}"  to  ap]:)raise  the  facts? 

JMr.  Lattimore.  Being  biased  or  being  unable  to 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Fairly  appraise  the  facts. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  will  rejoin  the  split  infinitive,  unable  to  ap- 
praise the  facts  fairly. 

Mr.  SouKw^iNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  Avitiich'aw  that  question.  I  am 
anxious  to  get  over  to  tlie  next  page  where  ]\Ir.  Lattimore  makes  it 
clear  that  he  is  opposed  to  making  a  technical  distinction. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Just  a  moment;  I  might  ask  a  question. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Ferguson. 

Senator  Ferguson.  There  is  not  any  doubt,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  you 
have  made  up  your  mind  about  the  committee  as  to  what  you  read  from 
the  United  States  Reports? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  made  up  my  mind  primarily  on  one  thing,  Sena- 
tor, and  that  is  that  I  am  an  innocent  man. 

Senator  Ferguson,  Well,  would  you  say  that  your  opinion  is  biased 
about  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  if  you  want  to  go  on  with  this  game  of  se- 
mantics, I  would  say  that  from  my  point  of  view  if  you  draw  a  diagram 
I  stand  at  the  center  of  this  picture  and  it's  very  hard  to  be  biased  in 
the  center.  You  can  be  biased  at  any  point  departing  from  the  center, 
but  it's  extremely  difficult  to  be  biased  at  the  center,  to  stand  at  the 
center  as  I  am  and  you  are  what  you  are. 

Senator  O'Conor.  We  will  take  a  recess  now  until  20  minutes 
after  4. 

(A  short  recess  was  taken.) 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  hearing  will  please  come  to  order. 

All  right,  Mr.  Lattimore,  will  you  proceed? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  give  a  false  appearance  of  reality  to  this  night- 
mare of  outrageous  lies,  shaky  hearsay,  and  undisguised  personal  spite, 
the  subcommittee  has  put  into  the  record  letters,  memoranda,  book 
reviews,  and  other  items  from  the  files  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Relations. 


2928  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  a  long  paragraph.  Might  I 
ask  a  question  at  the  end  of  that  sentence  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Dr.  Lattimore,  who  do  you  charge  with  "undis- 
guised personal  spite"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  comes  later  in  my  statement,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Senator  Smith.  Let  us  hear  it  now;  I  know  I  have  no  personal 
spite. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  glad  you  don't. 

Senator  Smith,  ^^liy  should  I? 

Senator  Watkins.  I  am  in  the  same  position  I  indicated,  nobody 
makes  up  my  mind.  I  say  you  are  not  helping  by  discussing  the  com- 
mittee to  start  with. 

JNlr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  trying  to  say  that  the  subcommittee 
started  to  put  into  the  record  letters,  memoranda,  book  reviews,  and 
other  items. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Who  do  you  charge  with  "undisguised  personal 
spite,"  sir? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  look  through  the- 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  know  who  you  refer  to.  Do  you  have  to  read 
that  statement  to  learn  who  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  One  rather  obvious  example  of  personal  spite  is  one 
of  your  former  employees.  Miss  Freda  Utley.    I  should  say 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Has  Miss  Utley  testified  jjefore  this  committee? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Miss  LTtley  was  in  the  employ  of  this  committee  and 
presumably  helped  to  recruit  and  prepare  some  of  the  other  witnesses. 

Mr.  JNIoRRis.  Do  you  know  an}'  witness  that  Miss  Utley  has  helped  to 
recruit,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Jnst  a  moment;  Mr.  Morris  has  a  question. 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  know  of  any  one  witness  who  Miss  Utley  helped 
to  recruit  for  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea.  I  know  that  Miss  Utley  showed  her 
personal  spite  when  she  testified. 

]Mr.  IMoRRis.  That  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  When  she  testified  before  the  Tydings  committee 
a  couple  of  years  ago,  and  then  she  was  hired  by  this  committee  for  a 
couple  of  months. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  "\"\nien  you  referred  to  "this  nightmare,"  were  you 
referring  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Tydings  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  referring  "to  this  nightmare  of  outrageous 
lies,  shaky  hearsay,  and  undisguised  personal  spite,"  presented  before 
this  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes.  Now  the  "undisguised  personal  spite"  that 
you  refer  to  as  presented 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Which  includes  Karl  Wittfogel,  would  be  a  good 
example.  I  should  think  Professor  McGovern  and  Professor  Cole- 
grove,  both  of  Northwestern  University. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now  we  are  getting  at  it.  Who  else  would  you 
include  in  your  charges  of  "undisguised  personal  spite"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  have  read  through  and  endeavored 
to  clarify  as  much  as  one  brain  can  hold  it,  an  enormous  mass  of 
testimony  already  issued  by  this  committee,  and  if  you  will  give  me 
time  I  would  be  very  glad  to  come  in  tomorrow  with  some  more 
specific  identifications. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2929 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Smith. 

Senator  Smith.  Here  is  a  fairly  simple  statement,  "and  undis- 
guised personal  spite."  That  means  personal  spite  that  anybody 
can  see;  that  is  undisguised.  Now  if  the  author  cannot  tell  us  who 
it  is  that  has  this  spite,  I  do  not  know  whether  we  should  even  con- 
sider this  statement  any  more  if  it  is  so  flimsy  that  he  cannot  tell 
you  who  it  is  that  has  personal  spite. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  given  certain  examples. 

Senator  Smith.  You  have  not  named  anybody  on  this  committee. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Presented  before. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Are  we  to  understand,  then,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that 
you  do  not  intend  that  to  be  applicable  to  any  member  of  this  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr,  Lattimore,  your  whole  sentence  jays  the  sub- 
committee has  done  something  and  tells  why  you  think  the  committee 
has  done  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  subcommittee  has  put  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes,  sir.  Why  do  you  say  that  the  committee  has 
put  into  the  record  certain  things '?  Do  you  not  say  that  the  subcom- 
mittee has  done  that  "to  give  a  false  appearance  of  reality  to  this 
nightmare     *     *     *,"  meaning  the  proceedings  of  this  subcommittee? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  say  ''this  nightmare  of  outrageous  lies,  shaky 
hearsay,  and  undisguised  personal  spite  *  *  *.''  Are  you  not  then 
charging  that  this  subconnnittee  has  done  certain  things,  namely^ 
put  matters  into  the  record  in  order  "to  give  a  false  appearance  of 
reality"  to  the  proceedings  of  this  committee  ?  Is  that  not  what  you 
are  saying  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  "To  give  a  false  appearance  of  reality  to  this  night- 
mare of  outrageous  lies,  shaky  headsay,  and  undisguised  personal 
spite,"  and  so  forth.  I  specified  below  that  a  large  part  of  this  comes 
from  tlie  files  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  But  you  have  indentified 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  said  on  the  previous  page — no,  at  the  top  of  this 
page — that  I  do  not  believe,  that  I  have  no  hope,  that  this  committee 
■will  fairly  appraise  the  facts,  and  this  is  part  of  my  supporting  state- 
ment. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  I  am  not  challenging  you  on  what  you  are  saying, 
sir,  at  the  moment :  I  am  trying  to  make  the  record  clear  as  to  what 
precisely  you  are  charging.     Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  material  has  been  presented  in  such  confu- 
sion, and  years  and  dates  have  been  so  jumbled,  as  to  make  it  impossi- 
ble for  ordinary  citizens  who  are  not  experts  on  the  Far  East  to  judge 
whether  a  problem  is  being  discussed  as  it  was  at  the  time,  as  it  might 
have  been,  or  as  it  is  now. 

Mr.  SouRAVHSTE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  two  questions  about  that  sen- 
tence. You  say  the  material  has  been  presented  in  confusion,  sir. 
Did  you  find  it  confusing  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Very. 

Mr.  Souravine.  You  say  that  years  and  dates  have  been  jumbled. 
Is  there  any  docmnent  that  you  know  of  that  has  been  introduced  in 
the  hearing  record  to  date  which  has  been  misidentified  as  to  date? 


2930  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mean  a  confusion  in  the  order  in  which  dates  and 
subjects  have  been  presented. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  take  issue  with  the  order  in  which  they  have 
been  presented.  Will  you  answer  as  to  your  knowledge  whether  any 
document  has  been  put  in  the  record  and  improperly  identified  as  to 
date  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  of  no  such  example,  and  I  wasn't  talking 
about  any  such  thing. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Go  ahead. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Ferguson. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  are  criticizing  the  committee  for  taking  a 
witness  and  going  through  that  particular  witness  on  documents  and 
dates  even  though  it  may  skip  certain  periods.  You  would  w^ant  the 
committee  to  bring  a  witness  back,  have  all  the  witnesses  here,  and 
put  it  in,  all  the  testimony  of  1  year,  in  at  that  period  so  that  you  could 
judge  the  evidence  of  all  the  witnesses  for  a  particular  year;  is  that 
what  you  are  after? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  my  impression  from  trying  to  go  through  all 
this  material  and  reduce  it  to  some  order  for  the  purpose  of  answering 
these  charges  against  me  is  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  do  so  because 
the  allegations  jump  all  over  the  place  from  year  to  year,  the  docu- 
ments of  different  years  are  introduced  at  various  points. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  that  not  because  witnesses  have  knowledge 
of  certain  documents  and  not  knowledge  of  other  documents  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know.  Senator.  To  some  extent  the  presen- 
tation of  documents  seems  to  have  been,  according  to  the  record,  at  the 
instance  of  counsel  of  the  committee  rather  than  of  the  witnesses  them- 
selves in  some  cases  at  least. 

Senator  Smith.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Smith. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  realize  that  every  witness  that 
has  testified  has  testified  under  oath  here? 

Mr.  Lat'timore.  Quite  so. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  recognize  that  that  system  of  having  wit- 
nesses in  courts  or  what-not  under  oath  is  the  only  system  that  you 
can  have  when  you  start  to  take  the  testimony  of  a  person  ?  You  would 
say,  would  you  not,  that  when  a  court  swears  a  witness  to  testify  to  the 
truth  that  is  all  the  court  can  do  at  the  moment;  is  that  not  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Smith.  The  court  cannot  know  in  advance  what  the  wit- 
ness is  going  to  say  precisely ;  can  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  in  the  case  of  this  committee  the  practice  ap- 
parently has  been  to  hear  every  witness,  or  practically  every  witness,  in 
executive  session  before  and  then  to  hear  them  in  public.  By  the 
time  the  public  record  is  published  it  includes  a  number  of  refer- 
ences showing  that  witnesses  have  been  questioned  on  the  basis  of 
something  that  they  have  previously  said  in  executive  testimony  which 
would  presumably  give  the  maximum  opportunity  for  presenting 
problems  in  chronological  order  and  with  the  documents  for  those 
problems  introduced  at  that  point  in  the  record. 

Senator  Smith.  You  approve  of  having  executive  sessions  to  first 
give  the  witness  a  chance  to  testify  without  publication ;  do  you  not, 
or  do  you  ? 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2931 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  have  never  been  a  Senator,  Senator,  and  I  can't 
■solve  that  kind  of  problem. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  prefer  to  have 
and  think  it  would  be  fair  to  have  an  executive  session  first  to  try 
to  get  at  the  facts  before  they  were  brought  out  in  public? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  never  had  the  responsibility  of  handling  that  kind 
of  problem. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  not  asking  you  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  just  don't  want  to  give  an  ofl'-the-cuff  answer 
on  a  problem  I  have  never  handled. 

Senator  Smith.  How  would  you  conduct  an  investigation  of  this 
sort  if  you  were  trying  to  get  at  the  facts?  Would  you  first  have  the 
witness  sworn  or  would  you  take  him  unsworn  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  Senator,  I  certainly  would  not  let  months 
and  months  go  by  before  people  who  have  been  accused  of  very  vile 
charges 


"to"- 


Senator  S]\eith.  I  did  not  ask  you  that  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  given  a  rebuttal. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  you  how,  step  by  step,  you  would  con- 
duct an  investigation.  Would  you  first  swear  the  witness,  or  would 
you  prefer  to  have  him  unsworn  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Have  any  witnesses  been  unsworn  ? 

Senator  Smith.  No;  I  said  would  you  prefer  to  have  a  witness 
sworn  or  unsworn. 

INIr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry,  Senator;  you  are  asking  technical 
questions. 

Senator  Smith.  Not  at  all.  I  am  going  to  the  question  of  whether 
or  not  this  committee  has  gone  on  in  good  faith  in  swearing  witnesses 
to  try  to  get  the  truth. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  said  nothing  about  swearing  witnesses. 

Senator  Smith.  But  you  attacked  the  committee  here.  You  said 
that  it  is  "To  give  a  false  appearance."  That  is  what  you  said  we 
are  trying  to  do,  give  a  "false  appearance  of  reality  to  this  nightmare 
of  outrageous  lies,  shaky  hearsay,  and  undisguised  personal  spite." 
Up  to  now  you  have  not  pointed  out  who  on  this  committee  has  per- 
sonal spite  against  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Wliat  did  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  have. 

Senator  Watkins.  On  the  committee  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Smith  said  "on  the  committee,"  said 
you  disavowed  that  previously? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  no,  thank  you. 

Senator  Smith.  So  you  do  not  want  to  tell  us  how  you  would  pro- 
ceed in  conductino;  an  investigation  when  you  are  trying  to  get  the 
facts? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  don't  think  my  amateur  opinion  of 
how 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  not  know  that  what  we  are  doing  here  is 
trying  to  get  the  facts?  Nobody  has  been  charged  with  a  crime  so 
far  as  I  know  here.  Do  you  not  understand  that  we  are  just  merely 
trying  to  get  the  facts  to  start  with  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  saying  that  I  should  have  liked  to 
see  witnesses  given  an  earlier  opportunity  to  answer  charges.     I  should 


2932  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

like  to  see  some  examination  and  cross-examination.  Those  are  ques- 
tions on  which  I  can  answer.  The  question  on  whether  you  ask  a 
witness  to  swear  standing  on  his  head  or  sitting  down,  that  kind  of 
thing,  is  just  beyond  my  competence. 

Senator  Smith.  We  have  asked  you  to  testify  under  oath;  have 
we  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Smith.  And  you  are  testifying  under  oath? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am. 

Senator  Smith.  And  we  are  cross-examining  you ;  are  we  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Smith.  What  is  the  question  about  that?  You  have  a 
chance  to  say  anything  you  want  to  say. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  haven't  accused  anybody  of  being  a  Communist 
on  inadequate  evidence,  but  I  am  being  cross-examined. 

Senator  Smith.  Who  has  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  A  whole  string  of  your  witnesses. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Who  are  you  accusing  of  what? 

Senator  Smith.  They  swear  under  oath. 

IVIr.  Lattimore.  But  they  haven't  been  cross-examined. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  whenever  they  get  ready  to  charge  anybody 
with  being  a  Communist,  they  will  be  cross-examined  at  the  trial  of  the 
case.  We  are  not  tr3dng  the  case  now.  You  seem  to  misconceive  the 
purpose  of  an  investigation,  that  is  just  to  get  the  facts  to  start  with. 
I  would  not  want  you  accused  here  without  giving  you  a  full  chance  to 
reply,  not  at  all.  That  is  the  reason  I  understood  we  were  going  to 
hear  everything  you  have  to  say,  and  I  am  in  favor  of  that,  giving 
you  a  chance  to  explain  everything. 

Senator  Watkins.  This  is  not  a  trial,  Mr.  Lattimore.  If  you  were 
in  court  and  said  the  things  you  said  to  this  committee  to  a  court,  you 
would  be  promptly  held  in  contempt  of  court  and  would  be  in  jail.  So 
this  is  not  a  trial.  You  are  getting  a  lot  better  treatment  than  you 
would  get  in  a  trial  if  you  made  those  statements  to  the  judge. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  have  made  a  statement  here  which  I  have 
been  working  on  for  months,  in  which  I  have  tried  to  give  as  orderly 
as  possible  a  presentation  of  what  I  want  to  say  in  as  orderly  a  way 
as  I  know  how  to  do  it.  I  have  made  my  statement  and  then  bring- 
in  what  else  I  have  to 

Senator  Watkins.  Do  you  want  us  to  consider  it  fairly,  impartially, 
and  without  bias?  Answer  me  that.  Do  you  want  us  to  consider  it 
that  way  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly. 

Senator  Watkins.  Wliy  do  3^ou  start  out  abusing  us  if  you  want 
us  to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  Senator,  I  have  to  characterize  the  kind  of  evidence 
that  has  been  piled  into  this  record. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  are  not  characterizing  the  evidence;  you 
are  characterizing  the  committee. 

Mr.  Latit]more.  Well,  I  am  characterizing  the  way  in  which  this 
kind  of  evidence  has  been  piled  up  with  no  opportunity  for  rebuttal, 
and  very  important,  I  think. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  are  here  for  rebuttal  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  no  testing  of  the  credibility  or  veracity  of  the 
witnesses. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2933 

Senator  Smith,  How  do  you  think  we  ought  to  test  your  credibility 
and  your  veracity?  We  are  taking  you  on  what  you  say.  How  do 
you  sa^^  we  test  your  credibility  and  veracity  right  now  in  your  own 
case  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  Senator,  I  tliink  all  of  you  are  doing  the  best  you 
can. 

Senator  Smith.  We  are  doing  just  what  you  said  we  were  not  doing 
then ;  are  we  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  Senator,  I  think  that  the  kind  of  examina- 
tion to  which  I  have  been  subjected  for  several  hours  now,  has  been 
rather  markedly  absent  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  witnesses  who  have 
been  making  the  accusations  to  which  I  am  trying  to  reply. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  are  accusing,  are  you  not, 
certain  witnesses  coming  before  this  committee  with  outrageous  lies? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  what  you  are  saying  about  other  wit- 
nesses ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now  why  do  you  then  censure  other  witnesses 
who  came  in  to  say  that  you  had  not  told  the  truth  ?  Why  should  you 
censure  them  and  not  want  them  to  censure  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  think  that  thus  far  I  have  probably 
not  read  a  comiDlete  sentence  without  interruption,  whereas  the  wit- 
nesses to  whom  I  refer  have  been  given  a  very  free  hand. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  anyone  accuse  you 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Without  the  same  kind  of 


Senator  Ferguson.  Did  anyone  accuse  you  as  being  an  outrageous 
liar? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  By  implication,  certainly. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  are  using  not  implications  but  the  exact 
words. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  They  are  accusing  me  of  being  a  Communist,  and 
I  am  denying  it.     Wouldn't  that  be  an  obvious  lie  ? 

Senator  Smith.  We  do  not  know  whether  it  is  or  not. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  I  am  trying  to  do,  Senator,  is  to  get  out  a 
straight  statement. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  minute,  Mr.  Lattimore  is  speaking.  Go 
ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  not  legally  trained  myself.  I  am 
trying  to  read  a  statement  that  I  have  made  in  as  simple  English  as 
I  can,  and  I  have  been  interrupted  repeatedly.  I  don't  want  to  give 
an  impression  of  evasiveness  or  hair-splitting  or  anything  of  that 
kind,  but  I  cannot  help  but  be  conscious  of  what  I  believe  is  one  dif- 
ference between  the  grand  fury  procedure  which  you  yourself  men- 
tioned not  long  ago  and  this  kind  of  procedure,  namely,  that  I  believe 
that  a  grand  jury  is  not  usuall}^  composed  exclusively  of  trained 
lawyers. 

Senator  Smith.  I  do  not  know  of  any  grand  jury 

Mr.  Lattimore.  When  on  the  otlier  liand  I  am  perhaps  unwar- 
rantedly  aware  of  the  fact  that  I  am  sitting  here  under  conditions 
in  which  my  own  lawyer  is  not  allowed  to  tender  advice  to  me  while 
I  am  asked  rather  complicated  questions  involving  legal  points  which 
miglit  be  pitfalls  for  me,  to  which  I  have  to  try  to  reply  to  the  best 
of  my  ability. 


2934  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  is  that  not  begging  the  question  ? 
You  were  advised,  and  if  you  were  not  advised,  you  are  now,  that  on 
any  of  these  so-called  complicated  questions  if  you  are  unable  to  com- 
prehend them  you  have  the  right  to  consult  with  your  counsel.  Why 
do  you  give  the  impression  in  the  record  that  you  are  being  deprived 
of  the  right  of  consultation  with  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  my  counsel  is  not  allowed  to  intervene 
at  any  time. 

Senator  O 'Conor.  You  are  allowed  to  consult  him, 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  any  time  he  thinks  I  may  need  advice  and  I  in 
my  ignorance  may  be  at  the  most  need  of  advice  at  any  moment 

Senator  O 'Conor.  It  is  evident  that  you  know  when  you  need  ad- 
vice, and  you  know  better  than  anybody  else  when  you  need  it. 

Senator  Watkins.  Most  of  the  witness'  statements  up  to  date  have 
been  charges  against  the  committee,  and  now  he  is  including  some  of 
the  witnesses,  and  I  think  the  committee  had  the  right  immediately  to 
find  out  what  he  meant  by  what  he  was  saying,  who  and  all  that. 

Now  v^'e  had  not  had  any  witness  before  that  has  shown  the  con- 
tempt for  the  committee  that  this  witness  has  and  made  the  charges 
that  he  has.  I  think  we  have  had  a  perfect  right  to  question  him  on 
that.  I  think  he  comes  in  and  says  he  cannot  get  a  fair  trial,  and  im- 
mediately afterward  he  will  say  he  did  not  have  a  fair  trial. 

I  came  here  with  an  open  mind  to  try  to  get  your  statement.  When 
you  keep  on  attacking  and  attacking  it  seems  to  me  you  cannot  be  fair. 

Mr,  FoRTAS.  I  am  counsel  for  Mr.  Lattimore.  Do  I  have  the 
privilege  of  saying  something  here  ? 

Senator  Smith.  If  you  can  give  us  any  facts,  I  say  you  should. 

Senator  O'Conor,  What  did  you  wish  to  say? 

Mr.  FoRTAS,  I  wish  to  address  myself  to  this  progi'am  that  the 
distinguished  Senator  Smith  raised — that  is,  about  procedure.  It  is, 
after  all,  a  legal  question.  It  is  very  difficult  for  a  lawyer  to  sit  here 
and  hear  statements  that  affect  the  interest  of  his  client  and  to  be  in 
a  position  where  he  can't  say  anything.  I  am  sure  that  all  of  you 
gentlemen  who  are  distinguished  lawyers  appreciate  that. 

Now  as  to  Mr.  Lattimore's  consulting  with  me,  he  is  sitting  here 
under  an  intense  barrage  questions  from  one,  two,  three,  four,  five 
distinguished  gentlemen,  and  his  concentration  is  intense  upon  those 
questions,  and  obviously  he  can't  be  expected  to  know  when  to  con- 
sult counsel. 

Now  of  course  I  have  a  very  fundamental  difference  of  opinion 
with  Senator  Smith  as  to  the  purpose  of  a  Senate  investigation,  I 
believe  that  the  purpose  of  a  Senate  investigation  is  to  develop  the 
facts,  both  sides  of  the  facts,  impartially  and  fairly.  It  is  not  my 
position  or  my  prerogative  to  say  whether  that  has  been  achieved 
here  or  not.  I  haven't  read  your  hearings,  and  it  is  none  of  my  busi- 
ness here.  But  it  does  seem  to  me  that  when  Mr.  Lattimore  is  con- 
fronted with  a  choice  as  to  whether  this  is  a  grand  jury  or  petty  jury 
proceeding  that  he  is  obviously  at  a  serious  disadvantage. 

If  Senator  Smith  says  that  it  is  like  a  grand  jury  proceeding,  it's 
like  a  grand  jury  proceeding  so  far  as  Mr.  Lattimore  is  concerned. 
To  me  there  are  a  great  manj^  differences. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  suggest  it,  this  witness  has  read  a  page 
and  a  half  of  this  statement.  The  statement  says  that  "I  believe  I  owe 
it  to  you  to  state  the  reasons  for  what  is  a  serious  accusation  of  this 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   KELATIONS  2935 

committee."  As  I  read  the  statement  it  is  a  serious  accusation  of  the 
committee,  and  I  have  read  the  statement,  and  he  proceeds  to  set  forth 
the  reasons  why  he  makes  that  accusation.  He  may  be  right;  he  may 
be  wrong.  He  may  be  justified ;  he  may  be  completely  unjustified,  but, 
Senator,  may  I  respectfully  beg  of  you  that  the  witness  be  allowed  to 
lay  before  the  members  of  this  committee,  most  of  whom,  I  take  it, 
have  not  read  the  statement,  what  the  reasons  are  and  then  may  I 
respectfully  suggest  that  you  go  ahead  and  cross-examine  him  on  it, 
but  I  suggest  that  no  hmnan  being  can  present  a  statement  in  that 
fashion. 

I  know  many  of  you  gentlemen ;  I  have  the  greatest  respect  for  all  of 
you,  and  I  am  sure  that  it  is  merely  because  you  do  not  realize,  as  I 
keenly  do,  the  strain  under  which  this  man  is  and  has  been  for  many 
days  and  many  weeks  that  causes  this.  I  beg  your  pardon.  Senator, 
for  getting  emotional  about  this,  but  I  do  believe  that  it  should  be  said. 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  committee  has  considered  the  matters.  The 
sessions  are  not  to  be  prolonged;  certainly  they  have  not  been  thus 
far.  We  did  not  begin  until  some  time  approaching  3  o'clock.  At  the 
request  of  the  witness  a  recess  was  taken,  and  we  are  going  to  continue 
only  to  5  o'clock.  So  that  in  full  time  he  will  not  have  been  on  the 
stand  much  over  2  hours,  so  it  is  not  too  long.  He  has  enjoyed  advice 
of  counsel  during  the  preparation  of  the  statement,  and  he  has  shown 
himself  to  be  capable. 

The  point  I  was  making  is  that  he  was  giving  an  erroneous  impres- 
sion that  he  is  not  enjoying  advice  of  counsel.  The  point  is  that  he  has 
the  right  to  advise  with  you  at  any  time.  If  that  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently indicated  before,  it  has  now. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Fortas,  if  this  were  a  grand  jury  procedure 
you  would  not  be  entitled  to  be  in  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  No,  and  he  would  not  be  confronted  with  a  group  of 
skilled  lawyers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  he  not  have  the  Attorney  General  and 
would  he  not  have  any  number  of  assistants  to  the  Attorney  General 
and  would  he  not  be  before  the  grand  jury? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  The  point  I  am  making,  and  I  beg  of  you  to  consider, 
is  a  human  matter.  The  point  that  I  am  making  to  you  is  that  the 
strain  upon  a  witness  of  having  questions  shot  at  him,  which  is  per- 
fectly appropriate  procedure,  I  am  not  criticizing  you,  I  am  asking 
you  to  bear  in  mind  that  strain,  of  having  questions  shot  at  him  by  a 
number  of  very  skillful  lawyers,  is  very  great  indeed,  and  it  is  so  great 
as  to  preclude  his  use  with  ordinary  intelligence  of  the  availability  of 
counsel  for  consultation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  "W^iat  length  of  sessions  would  you  desire  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  It's  not  a  matter  of  the  length  of  session.  You  have 
been  very  kind,  and  when  I  saw  the  witness  was  under  great  fatigue 
and  asked  the  chairman  for  a  recess  I  got  it,  and  I  am  sure  that  you 
will  continue  to  extend  that  courtesy.  But,  gentlemen,  these  proceed- 
ings are  a  tremendous  strain,  I  have  seen  that  with  people  that  I  have 
handled,  and  I  beg  you  to  keep  that  in  mind  and  let  this  man  lay  out 
these  reasons  which  will  retraverse  many  of  the  things  which  j^ou  have 
already  asked  him. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  are  again  asking  this  committee  to  conduct 
the  examination  by  allowing  the  witness  to  read  this  statement  without 
cross-examination  ? 


2936  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  No ;  I  am  not. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I,  for  one,  do  not  believe  that  tliat  is  the  way 
to  conduct  this  examination.  You  and  I  differ  on  that  problem.  I 
am  sure,  Mr.  Fortas,  that  if  you  were  over  here  you  would  want  to 
ask  some  questions. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  don't  know  what  my  attitude  would  be,  Senator.  I 
am  sure  that  I  would  want  to  have  the  witness  say  what  he  had  to  say 
in  an  orderly  fashion.    I  don't  believe  this  witness  has  done  it. 

Senator  Smith.  I  think  the  difficulty  there,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that 
these  statments  which  we  have  cross-examined  him  on  are  manifestly 
unfair  statements  which  he  has  made  about  the  committee  and  about 
witnesses.  Now  I  can  understand  how  Mr.  Lattimore  might  sit  down 
and  write  this  or  dictate  it  in  a  free-hand  fashion  and  make  statements 
that  he  does  not  have  proof  of,  and  that  is  a  thing  that  he  can  do 
until  he  is  challenged. 

We  are  challenging  Mr.  Lattim ore's  statement  that  we  are  trying  to 
give  a  false  appearance;  we  are  challenging  the  statement  that  the 
committee  will  not  fairly  appraise  the  facts,  not  that  it  is  not  able  to 
do  so  but  will  fairly  appraise  the  facts.  That  is  to  say  that  we  will 
improperly  and  unfairly  appraise  the  facts. 

I  resent  that  because  I  do  not  think  this  committee  has  any  preju- 
dice against  Mr.  Lattimore;  certainly  I  do  not  have,  and  I  do  not 
believe  the  rest  of  you  have.  We  may  have  had  witnesses  that  were 
prejudiced  against  him,  but  that  is  not  our  fault  as  long  as  we  swear 
them  to  tell  the  truth. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  may  I  take  up  one  thing? 

Senator  O'Connor.  The  witness. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Namely,  that  if  you  believe  that  this  committee  in 
its  published  proceedings  has  created  the  impression  that  this  is  a 
committee  before  which  a  witness  could  appear  with  only  a  statement 
that  he  had  light-heartedly,  and  I  think  you  said  free-handedly,  dic- 
tated  

Senator  Smith.  I  did  not  say  "light-heartedly." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  you  underrate  the  committee. 

Senator  Watkins.  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Watkins. 

Senator  Watkins.  I  want  to  make  a  comment  with  respect  to  the 
suggestions  of  Mr.  Fortas  that  we  wait  until  he  is  through. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  beg  your  pardon;  with  the  subject  matter. 

Senator  Watkins.  If  you  are  going  to  go  through  50  pages,  by 
that  time  the  Senators  have  to  go  to  other  matters,  and  we  have  to  ask 
questions  as  we  go  along  because  it  has  been  my  experience  that  we 
never  ask  them.    We  have  to  ask  them  as  the  witness  goes  along. 

He  has  raised  the  charges  against  the  committee.  He  has  not  gotten 
down  to  facts. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  been  trying. 

Senator  Watkins.  But  you  did  not  get  by  the  charge  statement 
against  the  committee,  and  we  have  a  right  to  know. 

Mr.  Fortas.  You  haven't  a  copy  of  the  statement,  but  you  will  notice 
that  on  page  8  there  is  a  roman  II,  and  all  that  I  had  in  mind  was  that 
the  witness  be  allowed  to  get  through  with  this  one  subject  matter  so 
that  you  can  see  and  cross-examine  him  on  what  he  says  about  that  par- 
ticular subject  matter. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2937 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Clifiinnan,  I  move  that  it  is  5  o'clock  and 
we  recess.  The  press  has  had  this ;  the  public  have  had  it,  and  the  only 
people  that  are  going  to  miss  anything  are  those  people  who  are  now  in 
the  room  and  who  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  read  it. 

Senator  O'Conok.  It  has  already  been  determined  to  recess  at  5,  and 
it  is  almost  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  make  one  remark  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  witness. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Please  do  not  think  that  I  was  trying  to  accuse  the 
Chair  or  the  committee  of  denying  me  advice  of  counsel.  I  am  per- 
fectly aware  it  was  made  expressly  clear  by  Senator  McCarran  at  the 
very  beginning  that  I  am  entitled  to  advice  of  counsel  when  I  ask  for  it^ 

All  I  was  trying  to  point  out  is  that  this  is  a  one-way  procedure  and. 
that  my  counsel  is  not  entitled  to  intervene  when  he  as  a  lawyer  might 
see  that  I  am  trying  to  answer  these  complicated  legal  questions  from 
trained  lawyers,  might,  as  a  layman,  be  getting  into  trouble  that  I  did 
not  appreciate  and  therefore  couldn't  ask  him  about  in  advance. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  in  retrospect  as  you  look  back  on 
this  afternoon's  hearing  has  there  been  any  point  where  you  would 
have  preferred  Mr.  P'ortas  to  advise  you  when  you  realize  that  you  did 
not  ask  for  advice  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  don't  know  if  you  realize  the  kind  of 
strain  that  this  hearing  is,  but  it  requires  such  an  intense  concentration 
on  each  question  as  it  is  asked  that  I  at  this  moment  could  not  give  you 
an  intelligent  recapitulation  of  this  afternoon. 

Senator  Ferguson.  He  may  be  by  morning. 

Senator  O'Conor.  But  you  cannot  refer  to  a  single  instance  where- 
you  were  at  a  disadvantage  by  reason  of  that  fact? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  offhand,  no,  liecause  my  mind  is  now  a  maze. 

Senator  O'Conor.  At  this  point  then  we  will  as  previously  agreed 
stand  adjourned  until  tomorrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  5  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  to  reconvene  at  10 
a.  m.,  Wednesday,  February  27,  1952.) 


INSTITUTE  OF  PACIFIC  EELATIONS 


WEDNESDAY,   FEBRUARY  27,    1952 

United  States  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the  Administration 

OF  THE  Internal  Securitt  Act  and  Other 
Internal  Security  Laws  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington^  D.  G. 

Tlie  subcommittee  met  at  10 :  55  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  recess,  in  room 
424  of  the  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Pat  McCarran  (chairman 
of  the  subcommittee)  presiding. 

Present:  Senators  McCarran,  O'Conor,  Smith,  Ferguson,  Jenner, 
^nd  Watkins. 

Also  present:  Senators  Langer  and  McCarthy;  J.  G.  Sourwine, 
committee  counsel ;  and  Robert  Morris,  subcommittee  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

The  chairman  on  yesterday  intended  to  but  omitted  to  make  this 
statement  to  the  audience,  that  the  committee  prefers  that  there  should 
be  no  demonstration  of  any  kind  to  any  statement  made  by  any  wit- 
ness, either  approving  or  disapproving  of  the  statement.  We  hope  that 
the  audience  may  see  fit  to  conform  to  that  rule. 

TESTIMONY  OF  OWEN  lATTIMOEE,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  HIS  COUNSEL, 

ABE  FORTAS 

The  Chairman.  Now,  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  were  interrogated  yester- 
day, and  you  covered  about  three  pages  of  your  statement.  You  have  a 
statement  there  of  50  pages.  Would  you  desire  to  insert  that  full 
statement  in  the  record,  or  do  you  desire  to  read  the  statement  and  be 
interrogated  on  it,  paragraph  by  paragraph  ?  And  if  you  insert  it  in 
the  record,  as  you  may  do  if  you  see  fit,  it  will  become  a  part  of  the 
record,  but  you  will  be  cross  examined  on  your  statement  and  on  other 
matters  pertaining  to  your  statement  and  your  position.  Which  do 
you  wish  to  do? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  at  this  moment  avail  myself 
of  your  previous  permission  to  use  my  one-way  communication  with 
my  counsel? 

The  Chairman.  Y'ou  can  have  a  two-way  communication  if  you 
want  to. 

(Mr.  Lattimore  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  like  to  read  my  statement,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  You  will  be  interrogated  as  you  go 
along. 

Senator  O'Conor,  I  will  have  to  ask  you  to  take  over.  I  have  to  go  to 
another  assignment.    Thank  you  very  much. 

2939 


2940  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

(Senator  O'Conor  assnmecl  the  chair.) 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  quite  sure  where  I  got  to  yesterday.  I 
believe  it  was  near  the  bottom  of  page  2,  is  that  right?  Does  the 
record  show? 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  do  not  think  that  you  got  through  the  second 
paragraph,  but  the  sentence  beginning,  "This  material  has  been 
presented,"  and  so  forth.  I  think  you  were  being  interrogated  on 
that.  In  any  event,  I  think  time  might  be  saved,  if  you  so  desired, 
to  take  it  up  at  that  point  and  just  read  on. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  material  has  been  presented  in  su-ch  con- 
fusion, and  years  and  dates  have  been  so  jumbled,  as  to  make  it  im- 
possible for  ordinary  citizens  who  are  not  experts  on  the  Far  East  to 
judge  whether  a  problem  is  being  discussed  as  it  was  at  the  time,  as  it 
might  have  been,  or  as  it  is  now.     I  do  not  know  whether  this  is 


chargeable  to  the  committee  or  its  staff 

Mr.  Sourwine.   At  that  point 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think  you  should  be  permitted  to  finish  the 
sentence  and  the  paragraph. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  no  one  can  read  the  record  without  realizing 
that  this  is  what  has  happened. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  mean  by  that  statement  that  you  do  not 
know  whether  this  is  chargeable  to  the  committee  or  its  staff,  to  say 
that  in  your  opinion  there  has  been  a  deliberate  jumbling  by  either  the 
committee  or  its  staff,  or  both? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  believe  the  record  as  it  has  been 
accumulated  shows  just  what  I  have  said,  a  jumbling  that  makes  it 
impossible  for  ordinary  citizens  to  judge  whether  a  problem  is  being 
discussed  as  it  was  at  the  time,  as  it  might  have  been,  or  as  it  is  now. 
The  responsibility  for  that  is  clearly  the  responsibility  of  the  com- 
mittee. I  am  obviously  not  in  a  position  to  know  how  far  the  com- 
mittee has  exercised  its  own  individual  and  collective  responsibility, 
hoAV  far  it  has  delegated  it  to  counsel,  or  exactly  how  this  has  been 
done. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Might  I  inquire?  Is  your  complaint,  Mr.  Lat- 
timore, against  the  conmiittee,  the  way  it  has  handled  the  investiga- 
tion as  far  as  you  are  concerned,  or  does  it  go  to  the  investigation  of 
IPR  and  other  people  connected  with  IPR?  Is  this  a  charge  on  all 
matters  of  investigation,  or  is  it  only  as  it  relates  to  you,  tliat  you  may 
be  concerned  with  the  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  a  statement,  Senator,  of  my  opinion  "on  the 
record  as  it  stands  to  date,  in  wliich  I  am  involved. 

Senator  Ferguson.  There  are  many  other  people  involved,  also, 
is  tliat  not  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  tliere  is  the  question  of  the  relationship  of 
the  IPR  with  the  State  Department,  is  that  not  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  any,  j^es. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Wei],  now,  you  say  "if  any."  Do  you  tliink 
that  there  is  no  connection  wliatever  between  IPR  and  \\\e  State 
Department,  or  any  of  the  State  Department  officials? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  you  liave  used  tlie  word  "connection," 
which  may  mean  different  things  to  different  people. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2941 

Senator  Ferguson.  Tliat  is  true. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  this  point  I  should  like,  if  I  may,  to  say  a  few 
words  as  carefully  considered  as  I  know  how  to  make  them. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  not  ask  him  a  question  ?  I  do  not  see  why 
we  cannot  have  plain,  simple  answers  to  the  questions. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  we  will  get  along  quickly. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Well,  I  do  think  that  if  the  question  is  susceptible 
of  a  direct  answer,  that  might  be  made;  and  then  any  explanatory 
statement  that  you  might  desire  to  make  in  connection  with  it. 

Mr.  LAT'riMORE.  Senator,  I  am  trying  to  make  a  statement  on  the 
thoughts  that  are  guiding  me  in  making  my  answers,  and  I  think 
perhaps  if  I  were  allowed  to  express  those  thoughts  at  the  present  time, 
it  might  clarify  other  questions  coming  up,  as  well  as  the  question 
immediately  before  the  committee. 

Senator  O 'Conor.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Latitmore.  I  have  been  for  many  years  a  professional  writer. 
I  am  also  a  university  professor.  I  am  accustomed  to  a  careful  use 
of  words.  I  have  tried  to  boil  down  into  50  pages  what  I  have  to 
say  about  an  accumulation  of  material  presented  before  this  com- 
mittee in  something  like  8  months.  I  have  tried  to  use  firm  and  pre- 
cise language. 

Yesterday  under  questioning  I  felt  at  times  as  if  perhaps  I  might 
be  giving  a  defensive  or  what  some  people  might  even  think  evasive 
or  hair-splitting  series  of  answers  to  many  questions.  I  want  to 
make  it  perfectly  clear  that  I  have  no  intention  of  evasiveness ;  that 
1  have  said  as  clearly  as  I  can  what  I  have  to  say ;  that  if  there  is  any 
hair-splitting,  or  if  there  is  any  playing  with  alternative  choices  of 
words,  that  is  not  my  responsibility.  It  is  a  consequence  of  the  form 
in  which  questions  are  asked  me. 

As  I  said,  I  have  used  firm  language.  Many  of  the  questions  that 
have  been  addressed  to  me  appear — I  may  be  oversensitive  on  the 
subject — but  appear  as  if  they  were  intended  to  make  me  either  soften 
my  statements  or  perhaps  in  frustration  say  something  more  strong 
than  what  I  intended  to  say. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  not  a  lawyer.  I  am  an  innocent  man  trying  to 
defend  himself  as  best  he  knows  how.  I  may  at  times  be  forced  by 
this  manner  of  questioning  to  overstate  my  reactions.  If  so,  I  want 
it  to  be  perfectly  clear  on  the  record  that  these  are  not  my  words — 
they  are  words  put  into  my  mouth  by  the  manner  of  questioning. 

Senator  Smith.  Could  we  have  one  understanding  before  we  pro- 
ceed further,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  are  not,  or  I  for  one  am  not  asking 
Professor  Lattimore  on  language.  As  I  understand,  all  we  are  ask- 
ing him  is  to  state  tlie  facts  in  sucli  plain  and  concise  language  that  all 
of  us  can  understand  what  the  answers  to  a  question  are,  instead  of 
having  these  long,  spun-out  discussions,  including  the  comment  about 
splitting  infinitives,  which  indicates  there  was  some  little  intention 
to  quibble  about  language. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  I  want  to  assure  you  that  I  was  not  trying 
to  put  words  into  your  mouth,  and  I  do  not  intend  to  so  try.  I  just 
want  to  ask  questions,  and  I  want  to  leave  you  out  of  it  as  mucli  as 
possible.  I  am  not  talking  about  tliis  statement,  as  far  as  you  person- 
ally are  concerned  now:  I  am  talking  about  the  investigation  by  this 
committee  into  what  I  think  is  a  very,  very  important  matter,  and  that 
is  the  question  of  penetration  of  communism  into  institutions  of  Amer- 

88348—52 — pt.  9 4 


2942  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

ica,  and  for  that  matter,  into  other  governments  and  otlier  countries. 
We  are  fighting  a  war  involving  that  very  principle.  And  if  we  have 
to  limit  our  investigation  here  and  be  cowed  down  and  fearful  that 
we  are  going  to  offend  someone,  then  we  are  not  going  to  get  very  far 
in  advising  the  people  of  America  on  this  great  problem  of  penetra- 
tion. And  that  is  why  I  want  to  talk  about  the  State  Department. 
I  want  to  give  every  man  the  right  to  make  statements,  freedom  of 
thought,  freedom  of  speech,  and  I  will  advocate  it  with  him;  but  I 
think  that  when  that  freedom  of  speech  and  that  freedom  of  thought 
goes  to  the  department  of  Government  that  can  influence  the  action 
of  that  Government,  then  the  people  ought  to  be  able  to  thoroughly 
go  into  the  matter,  not  in  personalities  but  in  questions  of  the  broad 
principles.  That  is  why  I  asked  you  the  question  here  now  about  the 
State  Department  and  the  IPR. 

Forget  that  you  were  a  trustee  for  a  moment.  Let  us  look  into  it, 
as  you  said  in  the  statement.  I  was  a  member,  yes,  I  was  a  member  of 
the  IPR.  I  paid  nominal  dues.  I  was  a  judge  in  Michigan  at  the 
time  that  I  went  into  it,  and  I  wanted  to  learn  something  about  the 
facts.  Now,  let  us  forget  whether  we  were  members.  Let  us  now  look 
at  the  IPR  and  try  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  people  did  penetrate  it, 
and  what  difference  does  it  make  to  you  and  to  me,  except  that  we 
ought  to  both  want  to  expose  it  if  people  did  penetrate  it.  And  to 
think  that  I  sat  here,  and  if  you  would  have  been  here  you  would  have 
heard  people  come  in  and  say,  "When  I  wrote  those  articles  for  the 
IPR,  when  I  wrote  a  book  that  was  to  be  used  in  the  public  schools, 
I  refused  to  answer  whether  or  not  I  was  a  Communist." 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  think  that  you  and  I  ought  to  be  greatly  interested 
in  the  problem  as  to  whether  or  not  the  IPR  was  penetrated  by  com- 
munism to  the  extent  that  Communists  wrote  books  under  the  label  of 
the  IPR,  that  we  were  members  of,  and  put  them  in  the  public  schools 
of  America.  I  think  that  the  time  has  come  when  you  and  I  ought  to 
forget  the  personal  things  and  try  to  ascertain  for  the  benefit  of  the 
United  States  citizen  what  is  happening  by  communism,  and  if  we  are 
going  to  deal  in  personalities  and  if  we  are  going  to  have  arguments 
about  personalities  in  this  investigation,  we  are  never  going  to  advise 
the  people. 

Let  us  look  at  the  IPR,  and  let  us  take  for  granted  that  the  people 
that  were  running  it  were  innocent ;  but,  whether  they  were  innocent 
or  guilty,  if  they  were  penetrated  should  we  not  then  show  tliat  to 
the  public  so  that  in  the  future  there  will  be  no  further  penetrations? 

Now,  if  we  can  think  of  it  in  that  way,  maybe  we  can  get  somewhere. 

Now  I  will  ask  you  the  question,  Professor :  Did,  in  your  opinion, 
the  State  Department  get  information  from  IPR  ? 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  Senator,  I  am  in  agreement  with  what  you  sa}", 
especially  about  not  being  cowed. 

Senator  Fergusox.  And  I  do  not  want  you  to  be  cowed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  dealing  with,  I  think,  all  of  the  questions  that 
you  have  brought  up,  and  I  have  tried  to  put  them  in  my  statement 
in  an  orderly  manner,  and  to  support  what  I  have  to  say.  I  have 
adverted  to  this  matter  of  the  questioning  because  it  contributes,  in 
my  respectful  opinion,  to  the  character  of  jumbled  evidence  that  I 
referred  to  before,  and  it  leads  very  frequently  to  a  request  to  me  to 
give  an  offhand  statement  of  something  that  I  have  later  put  in  my 
prepared  statement,  in  my  own  words  and  in  my  own  way,  in  such 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2943 

a  manner  that  I  may  later  be  confronted  with  possibly  quibbles  about, 
"You  said  it  this  way  on  interrogation,  and  you  said  it  that  way  in 
your  statement." 

I  think,  Senator,  it  would  be  much  more  orderly  if  I  were  allowed 
to  proceed  with  my  statement,  and  then  to  answer  any  questions  you 
like  in  any  order  you  bring  them  up. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  second.  You  are  not  to  determine  for 
the  committee  how  it  is  to  proceed.  The  chairman  gave  you  the  right 
this  morning  to  place  the  entire  statement  in  the  record  if  you  so 
desired,  or  to  proceed  and  have  the  committee  to  undertake  its  inter- 
rogations as  you  went  along.  You  consulted  with  counsel  as  you 
desired  to  do,'and  then  you  determined  that  you  did  not  wish  to  put 
your  statement  in  the  record  in  toto. 

Now,  you  are  not  to  tell  the  committee  how  it  is  to  proceed.  The 
question  Senator  Ferguson  asked  is  a  very  direct  one  and  a  simple 
one,  and  it  admits  of  a  clear  answer,  and  we  would  like  very  much 
to  have  you  address  yourself  to  it  and  answer  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  only  meant,  Senator,  to  say  how  I  would  like  to 
proceed. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Fortunately,  you  are  not  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee, sir,  for  this  purpose. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Your  question  again  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  will  put  it  this  way 

Senator  O'Conor.  Let  the  stenographer  read  it  so  the  committee 
mi^ght  have  it  before  them. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  never  worked  in  the  State  Department. 

(The  question  asked  by  Senator  Ferguson  was  read  by  the  re- 
porter as  follows :) 

Now  I  will  ask  you  the  question,  Professor :  Did,  in  your  opinion,  the  State 
Department  get  information  from  IPR? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  onl}^  an  outsider's  presumption  that  mem- 
bers of  the  State  Department  got  information  from  IPR  publications, 
as  they  did  from  any  other  publications  that  might  interest  them, 
on  the  subject  of  the  Far  East. 

Senator  Ferguson.  The  reason  I  asked  you  that  question  was — and 
I  think  that  your  answer  brings  this  up  now — you  defend  two  or  three 
people  in  this  statement,  as  far  as  the  State  Department  is  concerned, 
and  you  tell  the  public  in  this  statement  that,  for  instance,  Mr.  Clubb 
was  freed  by  the  Loyalty  Board.  And  where  did  you  learn  that,  if 
you  know  nothing  about  the  State  Depai'tment  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  From  the  press. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  know 
that  it  is  a  fact  that  the  State  Loyalty  Board  itself  did  not  clear 
Mr.  Clubb,  and  that  Mr.  Acheson  personally,  when  it  went  to  him 
for  review,  was  the  one  who  set  aside  the  ruling  of  the  Board  and 
freed  Mr.  Clubb? 

Mr.  Latti^iore.  I  have  not  seen  that  in  the  press.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  know  it  is 
a  fact? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  then,  are  you  just  quoting  here  in  this 
statement  about  these  people  what  you  learn  in  the  press  rather  than 
trying  to  get  the  facts?     You  are  giving  to  the  public  the  idea  that 


2944  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Clubb  was  freed  by  tlie  Loyalty  Board,  and  I  am  asking  you 
whether  or  not  you  know  it  was  a  fact  that  that  was  not  a  fact  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  that  it  was  not  a  fact. 

Senator  Fekgusox.  Then  why  do  you  give  it  to  this  connnittee  and 
expect  this  committee  not  to  ask  you  any  questions  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  are  perfectly  free  to  ask  me  that  question^ 
Senator.     I  have  given  you  my  answer. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  your  answer  is  that  you  do  not  know. 
Have  you  talked  to  Mr.  Clubb  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  seen  jMr.  Clubb  since  he  was  cleared:  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  or  not  the  Loyalty 
Board  found  against  him,  and  then  when  it  went  up  to  Mr.  Humeisine 
he  approved  tlie  Loyalty  Board,  and  when  it  went  to  Mr.  Achesoii  he 
reversed  the  Loyalty  Board  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  not  either  an  amateur  or  a  profes- 
sional snooper. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  ask  you  that;  and  I  asked  you  whether 
or  not  you  asked  Mr.  Clubb. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  a  simple  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  accepted  Mr.  Clubb's  word  that  he  had  been 
cleared. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  was  cleared  by  the 
Loyalty  Board  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  not  interested  in  going  into  post  mortems 
on  the  fact,  and  I  congratulated  him  and  then  we  went  on  to  talk 
about  other  subjects. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  he  tell  you  why  he  had  resigned  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  On  the  subject  of  his  resignation,  I  did  not  ask 
him  why  he  had  resigned.  I  congratulated  him  on  resigning,  and  he 
later  made  a  statement  to  the  press  that  he  was  resigning  at  this 
time  because  he  felt  that  his  career  had  been  permanently  damaged, 
and  that  under  the  system  of  multiple  jeopardy  now  prevailing,  he 
might  be  haled  up  again  at  any  other  time.  I  accordingly  wrote  in 
my  statement  that  he  has  taken  to  heart  the  now  obvious  lesson  that  the 
State  Department  is  not  a  safe  place  for  a  man  who  has  been  cleared. 
That  is  my  opinion. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  3^011  discuss  that  with  Mr.  Clubb — as  to  why 
he  resigned? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  not  discuss  it  with  him.  Senator  Ferguson. 
He  is  a  friend  of  mine,  and  an  honorable  man,  and  when  he  said  he 
had  been  cleared,  I  said,  "Thank  God."     Wliy  should  I  badger  him? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  j'ou  know  that  the  State  Department  on  a 
number  of  occasions,  Mr.  Lattimore,  has  brought  the  charges,  and 
then  allowed  people  to  resign;  and  that  up  to  date,  as  far  as  from 
the  State  Department's  view,  no  one  has  been  discharged  for  loj'^alty 
reasons,  and  we  will  exclude  the  Clubb  situation.  I  am  asking  you 
whether  or  not  you  know  that  ? 

Mr.  Laiitmore.  I  do  not  know  it,  and  it  is  no  concern  of  mine  and 
no  duty  of  mine  as  a  citizen. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  when  you  raised  these  questions  here 
about  certain  people  in  the  State  Department,  I  wanted  to  know 
whether  or  not  you  had  actual  knowledge. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2945 

Senator  Smith.  Might  we  inquire  as  to  why — I  believe  it  is  on 
page  21 — Professor  Lattimore  even  went  into  the  matter  of  Mr.  Chibb 
at  all  1    What  was  the  purpose  in  doing  that? 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  loiow. 

Senator  Smith.  If  you  were  not  concerned  with  it,  what  was  the 
purpose  of  bringing  his  name  into  this  statement  of  yours? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  Senator,  I  protest  once  more  at  being  forced 
to  take  up  my  statement  disjointedly  instead  of  in  the  orderly  manner 
that  I  wanted  to  do,  but  I  would  point  out  to  you  that  on  page  20  I 
give  my  reasons :  ^ 

The  three  outstanding  examples  of  men  sacrificed  to  the  hysteria  that  has 
teen  whipped  up  in  this  country  by  the  China  lobby — a  hysteria  to  which  this 
committee,  I  um  sorry  to  say,  is  contributing — are — 

And  then  I  go  into  the  names. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  inquire  ? 

Senator  Fergson.  You  had  no  personal  knowledge,  did  you,  Mr. 
Lattimore,  on  the  Service  and  the  Clubb  and  the  Vincent,  the  three 
names  that  you  mentioned  here  in  your  statement — you  have  no  per- 
sonal knowledge  as  to  what  was  in  the  loyalty  reports,  and  the  evidence, 
and  the  FBI  reports ;  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  all  three  men  are  men  that  I  have  known 
for  years,  and  all  three  men  are  such  trustworthy  members  of  the  De- 
partment of  State  that  they  would  not,  and  I  have  never  asked  them 
to,  talk  to  me  about  the  internal  mechanisms  of  the  Department  of 
State.  My  concern  is — and  again  I  return  to  my  statement,  and  again 
in  a  fragment : 

I  believe  that  it  is  as  important  to  the  welfare  and  safety  of  this  country  to  have 
a  strong  State  Department  and  an  able  Foreign  Service  in  our  diplomacy  as  it 
is  to  have  effective  military  forces.    I  believe  that^ ■ 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  agree  with  you  on  that. 
Mr.  Lattimore  (reading:) 

That  the  usefulness  of  our  Foreign  Servi(^e  personnel  has  already  been  jeop- 
ardized by  the  work  of  this  committee — both  directly  by  attacks  on  irreplaceable 
personnel,  and  indirectly  by  impairing  the  confidence  of  the  Nation  and  our 
foreign  allies  in  our  State  Department  and  by  instituting  a  reign  of  terror  among 
our  Foreign  Service  personnel. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  was  not  my  question.  Mr.  Lattimore,  but 
I  am  glad  that  you  read  that  into  the  record,  and  I  agree  with  the  first 
part,  as  I  indicated. 

My  question  is :  Do  you  know  what  the  charges  were,  and  do  you 
know  what  the  evidence  was,  as  far  as  the  State  Department,  the  FBI, 
and  the  Loyalty  Board  are  concerned,  on  these  three  people  named 
here  in  your  statement? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  am  I  a  citizen  of  America,  or  a  sub- 
ject of  Czechoslovakia  or  Franco  Spain?  Am  I  expected  to  run 
around  snooping  on  my  fellow  citizens  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  moment,  Senator  Ferguson. 

That  statement  is  entirely  unnecessary.  The  question  of  Senator 
Ferguson  did  not  call  for  any  such  outburst  as  that.  Now,  will  you 
kindly  confine  yourself  to  the  question  that  is  asked,  and  I  think  if  it 
is  answered  in  the  same  manner  in  whicli  the  question  is  asked,  there 
will  be  no  difficultv. 


2946  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Senator  Smith.  May  we  have  the  question  read  ? 

(The  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  either  do  or  you  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  Imow  the  charges  as  far  as  they  were  in  the  press^ 
and  I  do  not  know  the  procedures  or  the  documents;  unUke  Senator 
McCarthy,  I  have  not  been  procuring  classified  documents. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  just  asking  you  whether  or  not  you  knew; 
and  you  say  you  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  all. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Now,  counsel  desires  to  inquire. 

Senator  Watkins.  Yet  you  passed  judgment  on  all  of  those  situa- 
tions ;  did  you  not  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Watkins  asked  a  question. 

Senator  Watkins.  Now,  you  say  you  did  not  know,  and  yet  you  pass 
judgment  on  each  one  of  these  cases  and  you  proceed  to  characterize 
their  treatment. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  standing  on  the  public  record  as  it 
is  in  the  press,  as  it  is  in  the  record  of  this  committee ;  and  I  am  some- 
what resentful,  I  tliink  naturally,  of  the  implications  that  I  should 
have  constituted  myself  a  private  eye  of  some  kind  and  gone  probing 
into  matters  that  are  not  the  ordinary  province 

Senator  Watkins.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  what  I  asked  you.  Did 
you  or  did  you  not  pass  judgment  on  it  ? 

]\lr.  Lattimore.  Pass  judgment?    I  expressed  an  opinion. 

Senator  Watkins.  That  is  in  the  nature  of  a  judgment  that  they 
were  given  unfair  treatment. 

Senator  Smith.  The  q,uestion,  it  seems  to  me,  is  whether  or  not  we 
expect  him  to  do  any  snooping,  because  that  is  up  to  his  own  conscience 
to  determine,  and  the  question  is  whether  or  not  he  was  willing  to 
make  statements  in  this  statement  of  facts,  supposed  to  be,  about 
someone  that  he  had  not  investigated,  and  I  thought  that  was  what 
Senator  Ferguson  asked. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  When  it  has  been  stated  in  the  press.  Senator,  that 
a  man  has  received  official  clearance,  that  is  sufficient  for  me. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right,  now. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  witness  hasn't  answered  Senator  Ferguson's 
question  as  to  whether  Mr.  Clubb  told  him  why  he,  Mr.  Clubb,  was 
resigning. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  thinli  he  answered  that  by  sajdng  lie  did  not. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  the  witness  say  Mr.  Clubb  did  not  tell  him  why 
he  was  resigning? 

Mv.  Lattimore.  I  told  the  Senator  that  I  took  up  the  subject  by 
congratulating  him,  and  that  I  then  saw  Mr.  Clubb's  statement  to  the 
press. 

Ml'.  Sourwine.  Precisely.  You  told  the  Senator  that  you  had  not 
asked  Mr.  Clubb  about  his  resignation. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  not  ask  Mr.  Clubb. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  you  told  the  Senator  that  you  had  read  it  in 
the  press,  but  you  did  not  answer  the  question  as  to  whether  Mr.  Clubb 
told  you  why  he  was  resigning ;  and,  now,  did  he  ? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  said  I  did  not  ask  Mr.  Clubb,  and  I  didn't  go  into 
any  post  mortem,  and  there  was  no  conversation  on  the  subject, 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  he  tell  j^ou  why  he  was  resigning  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2947 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  he  did  not. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  He  told  you  that  he  was  resigning  ? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  assumed  that  I  knew  why  he  was  resigning,  and 
that  was  all  there  was  to  the  conversation. 

]\Ir.  SouEwiNE.  He  told  you  that  he  was  resigning  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  I  think  I  saw  him  after  his  resignation  had 
been  announced. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  He  did  not  tell  you  that  he  was  resigning? 

Mr.  LxVTTi3i0RE.  He  didn't  tell  me  beforehand  that  he  was  going  to 
resign. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  simply  met  him  and  congratulated  him  on  it, 
and  there  was  no  discussion  as  to  why  he  had  resigned  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  It  had  already  been  in  the  papers  with  his  state- 
ment ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Now,  if  you  will,  the  bottom  of  page  2,  then. 
"We  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  kinds  of  attempts  have  been  made  to  depict 
me  as  a  Communist  or  a  Soviet  agent.  I  have  in  fact  been  falsely 
identified  as  a  fellow  traveler,  sympathizer,  or  follower  of  the  Com- 
munist line  or  promoter  of  Communist  interests.  Now  I  want  to 
make  my  position  clear.  I  am  not  interested  in  fine  or  technical  dis- 
tinctions. I  am  not  interested  in  graduations  or  degrees  of  disloyalty. 
I  have  no  use  for  fancy,  legalistic  distinctions.  I  am  none  of  these 
things  and  have  never  been.  I  am  not  and  have  never  been  a  Com- 
munist, a  Soviet  agent,  a  sympathizer,  or  any  other  kind  of  promoter 
of  communism  or  Communist  interests,  and  all  of  these  are  nonsense.. 
I  so  testified  long  ago,  under  oath,  before  the  Tydings  subcommittee, 
and  I  do  so  again. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  ]\Ir.  Chairman,  if  I  might  break  in,  there  are  four 
or  five  questions  which  have  been  asked  a  number  of  witnesses  here,, 
and  in  order  to  give  Mr.  Lattimore  an  opportunity  to  make  his  denial 
completely  categorically,  I  would  like  to  ask  those  questions : 

Mr.  Lattimore,  are  you  now  or  have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the 
Communist  Party  of  the  United  States  or  a  member  of  the  Communist 
Party  of  any  other  country? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  you  ever  been  asked  or  iiiAnted  or  urged  to 
join  the  Communist  Party  of  any  country? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Were  you  ever  a  part  of  any  Communist  organiza- 
tion, apparatus,  or  network? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Were  you  ever  under  Communist  discipline? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  ever  agTee  to  accept  Communist  discipline? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Tliank  you. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Now,  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  One  of  the  most  shocking  things  that  has  happened 
in  the  proceedings  is  that  not  one  of  the  witnesses  against  me  has  ever 
been  asked  in  examination  or  cross-examination  a  question  that  would 
test  his  motives  or  his  reliability.  Most  shocking  in  this  respect 
has  been  the  suppression  or  at  least  the  bland  ignoring  of  evidence 


2948  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

already  of  record.  The  counsel  of  this  subcommittee,  Mr.  Morris, 
was  the  counsel  of  the  Republican  minority  of  the  Senate  Subcommit- 
tee on  Foreign  Relations — the  Tydings  committee — and  therefore  had 
intimate  knowledge  of  this  record  evidence.  It  has  also  been  widely 
reported  in  the  press. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might  interrupt  the  witness  at 
that  point,  I  would  like  to  ask  this : 

Are  you  intending  to  charge  Mr.  Morris  with  willful  suppression 
of  e^ddence? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  profess  to  know  the  inside  of  Mr.  Morris' 
mind. 

Senator  O'Conor.  That  was  not  the  question.  You  were  asked 
what  was  in  your  mind. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  What  is  in  my  mind  is  that  Mr.  Morris  had  inti- 
mate kno^vledge  of  this  record  evidence,  and  tliat  I  think  it  is  a  shock- 
ing thing  that  in  the  proceedings  before  this  committee  no  mention 
has  been  made  of  that  fact. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Have  you  carefully  phrased  your  language  for  the 
purpose  of  conveying  implications  which  you  do  not  desire  flatly  to 
make,  of  implying  charges  that  you  don't  care  to  state? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  one  of  those  hair-splitting 
legalistic  questions  to  which  I  referred,  and  I  do  not  want  to  give  a 
hair-splitting  answer.  I  have  tried  to  make  my  language  clear  and 
firm.  I  have  tried  not  to  imply  that  I  know  things  which  I  do  not 
know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  want  to  refer  the  witness  to  page  2519  of  the 
State  Depaitment  Employee  Loyalty  Investigation — I  think  that  it 
might  better  be  known  as  the  Tyding-s'  investigation — under  Senate 
Resolution  231,  in  going  into  the  question  of  whether  or  not  they  went 
thoroughly  into  IPR,  and  yesterday  it  was  brought  out  that  they 
did  not  have  the  files  of  the  IPR.     Senator  Tydings  says  this : 

There  isn't  anything,  Mr.  Morris,  that  isn't  pertinent,  and  we  can  keep  on 
asking  for  things,  and  tliere  is  no  donbt  in  the  world,  that  would  be  a  good  thing 
to  get,  and  you  could  ask  for  5,000  different  things ;  but  we  are  pretty  far  away 
from  loyalty  in  the  State  Department  when  we  get  out  in  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Relations  with  our  little  force.    We  just  haven't  got  it. 

Does  that  not  indicate  that  Senator  Tydings  was  not  going  into  the 
question  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations'  and  its  relation  to  the 
State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator  Ferguson,  I  was  very  clearly,  in  my  state- 
ment, referring  not  to  things  that  the  Tydings  committee  might  have 
gone  into.  I  had  no  more  control  over  the  proceedings  of  the  Tydings 
committee  than  I  have  over  the  proceedings  of  this  committee,  and  I 
was  referring  specifical  ly  to  matters  that  are  of  record  in  the  Tydings 
hearings. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  see,  I  am  much  more  interested  in  the  whole 
procedure  of  the  investigation  of  penetration  in  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Relations,  and  I  am  not  directly  interested  in  the  individuals 
that  may  come  up  from  time  to  time  in  that  investigation,  only  as  it 
relates  to  the  broad  question  of  penetration  into  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Relations,  plus  the  other  question  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations' 
relations  to  the  State  Department  and  making  of  foreign  policy.  So 
I  feel  that  the  committee  has  a  much  broader  field,  and  a  more  im- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2949 

portant  question  than  even  the  Tydings  committee  had,  of  individuals 
and  their  loyahy. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator  Ferguson,  the  next  passage  in  my  state- 
ment refers  to  a  witness  who  appeared  before  the  Tydings  subcom- 
mittee, and  has  also  appeared  before  this  subcommittee.  It  illustrates 
exactly  what  I  meant  to  say. 

Mr.  Sotjr'\\t:ne.  Before  the  witness  goes  to  that,  if  the  Chair  will 
permit,  I  would  like  to  get  back  to  this  question  of  the  charge  against 
Mr.  Morris.  The  witness  did  not  answer  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  language  here  was  intentionally  put  together  for  the  purpose  of 
implying  a  charge  that  he  does  not  want  to  make.  If  that  is  not  the 
case,  it  should  be  very  easy  to  say,  "No,  I  did  not." 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  think  that  I  answered  that  question,  Mr.  Sour- 
wine,  and  I  said  that  my  language  was  carefully  chosen  not  to  imply 
things  that  I  do  not  know ;  and  I  do  not  know 

Mr.  SonRWiNE.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  INIr.  Morris  acted  in  bad 
faith  or  not.     That  is  a  matter  for  his  conscience. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  have  an  anmius  against  Mr.  Morris,  Mr. 
Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Latttmore.  No  ;  I  have  no  animus  against  Mr.  Morris.  I  am 
merely  defending  myself. 

Mr.'  SouR'uaNE.  Do  you  have  any  feeling  against  him  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  How  do  you  mean  ''any  feeling"  ? 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  dislike  him? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  him. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  dislike  him  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  him. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  have  any  feeling  of  enmity  or  irritation 
against  him? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  a  feeling  of  outrage  at  the  way  in  which 
the  evidence  before  this  subcommittee  has  been  stacked,  in  which  he 
took  a  material  part. 

Mr.  Souewine.  That  is  what  you  are  expressing  here,  is  that  right  ? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  am  expressing  the  fact  here  that — 

most  shocking  in  this  respect  has  been  the  suppression,  or  at  least  the  bland 
ignoring,  of  evidence  already  of  record.  The  counsel  of  this  subcommittee,  Mr. 
Morris,  was  the  counsel  of  the  Republican  minority  of  the  Senate  Subcommittee 
on  Foreign  Relations — the  Tydings  committee — and  therefore  had  intimate 
knowledge  of  this  record  evidence. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  have  gone  back  to  read  the  statement  again, 
haven't  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  quite  right. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Are  you  going  to  insist  throughout  this  hearing  on 
saying  nothing  outside  of  the  langiiage  that  you  have  said  has  been 
carefully  phrased  over  months,  in  this  statement  ? 

Mr.  Lattemore.  I  am  endeavoring.  Mr.  Sourwine.  as  I  said  before, 
not  to  confuse  issues  by  having  words  put  into  my  mouth  in  tlie  an- 
swering of  questions,  thus  obscuring  what  I  have  clearly  and  cate- 
gorically said  of  my  own  volition. 

Mr.  SouRwixE.  Do  you  realize  this  paragraph  you  have  just  con- 
cluded reading  will,  to  any  ordinary  person  who  reads  it  once  for 
the  first  time,  convey  the  impression  that  you  are  charging  Mr.  Morris 
with  deliberate  suppression  of  evidence  ? 


2950  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Soiirwine,  I  am  referring  here  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  subcommittee 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  asked  you  if  you  were  aware 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Of  which  Mr.  Morris  is  only  a  part. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Are  you  aware  that  the  original  reading  of  this 
by  almost  anj^one  will  convey  the  impression  that  you  are  charging 
Mr.  Morris  with  the  deliberate  suppression  of  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  aware,  Mr.  Sourwine,  of  your  authority 
to  state  how  the  ordinary  citizen  would  react.  You  are  an  interested 
party. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  asked  you  if  you  were  aware  of  that  fact.  You 
are,  as  you  have  stated,  a  man  of  education,  a  man  who  is  a  university 
professor ;  and  now,  are  you  aware  that  the  average  reader  will  get — 
or  do  you  have  an  opinion  as  to  what  impression  the  average  reader 
will  get  from  this  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  an  opinion  of  the  impression  I  intended  to 
■convey. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Good.     Now,  what  did  you  intend  to  convey? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  intended  to  convey  that  "most  shocking  in  this 
respect  has  been  the  suppression  or  at  least  the  bland  ignoring  of 
evidence  already  of  record." 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  other  words,  you  intended  to  convey — and  then 
you  state  exactly  the  language  which  is  in  here. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  That  is  right,  and  I  hope  the  impression  was  con- 
veyed. 

Senator  SMmi.  Professor  Lattimore,  you  say  first  that  there  has 
been  the  suppression.  Well,  now,  are  you  certain  that  you  meant  to 
convey  the  impression  that  you  spoke  with  certainty  that  there  had  been 
suppression  of  evidence  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  I  had  meant  that,  Senator  Smith,  I  should  have 
said  so.  That  is  wliy  I  wrote,  "suppression  or  at  least  the  bland 
ignoring." 

Senator  Smith.  So  that  when  you  said  "suppression,"  you  did  not 
really  mean  "suppression,"  that  you  had  any  evidence  of  suppression ; 
but  you  are  making  the  statement  of  either  suppression  or  blancl 
ignoring? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator  Smith,  the  evidence  that  I  have  is  that  the 
great  majority  of  the  allegations  that  have  been  made  against  me 
before  this  subcommittee  were  previously  made  before  the  Tydings 
committee  and  thoroughly  dealt  with  there,  and  that  this  connection 
has  never  been  referred  to  in  the  proceedings  before  this  subcommittee ; 
that  Mr.  Morris  was  one  of  the  counsel  of  that  committee,  and  one 
of  the  counsel  of  this  committee;  that  the  absence  of  connection  in 
the  two  proceedings  indicates  either  suppression  or  bland  ignoring. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  now,  then  that  is  your  answer  to  what  you 
meant  when  you  charge  this  committee,  or  at  least  Mr.  Morris,  with 
suppression  of  evidence;  that  is  all  the  answer  you  want  to  give  to 
that,  is  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  all  of  the  answer  I  want  to  give. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  think  that  that  is  any  answer  at  all  when 
you  charge  a  man  with  suppressing  evidence,  or  do  you  think  that  you 
have  answered  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  referring  to  the  fact.  Senator,  that  evidence 
has  been  omitted  before  this  subcommittee. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2951 

Senator  Smith.  Was  anybody  attempting  to  keep  you  from  offering 
any  evidence  you  wanted,  if  it  has  been  omitted? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  After  8  months,  I  have  finally  been  allowed  to 
appear  here  and  read  a  few  paragraphs  of  what  I  want  to  say. 

Mr.  SoTjRwiNE.  In  the  paragraphs  you  have  already  read,  have  you 
■offered  any  evidence  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  hold  that. 

Have  you  concluded  ? 

Senator  Jenner.  The  witness  has  stated  this  matter  has  been  gone 
into  thoroughly  before  the  Tydings  committee.  I  think  that  the 
reading  of  Senator  Ferguson  from  the  Tydings  committee  shows  that 
'they  did  not  have  the  staff  and  they  did  not  go  into  this  fully.  I  be- 
lieve my  recollection  is  probably  correct  that  this  investigation  pri- 
marily is  with  IPR,  and  to  show  its  relationship  with  the  State  De- 
partment and  the  influence  it  might  have  had  upon  the  State  Depart- 
ment. He  says  this  matter  was  gone  into  thoroughly  before  the 
Tydings  committee.  The  files  and  the  records  of  the  IPR  were  not 
*ven  available.  As  a  result,  w£  found  them  some  place  up  here  in  a 
barn,  stored  away,  and  that  is  the  base  of  this  investigation.  So  on 
that  basis,  how  could  Mr.  jSIorris  be  fully  acquainted  with  all  of  this, 
and  how  could  it  have  been  thoroughly  gone  into  in  the  Tydings  hear- 
ings when  it  was  not  even  available?  How  could  it  have  been  sup- 
pressed? I  want  to  ask  the  witness,  on  the  basis  of  that  fact,  how 
it  could  have  been  suppressed  ?  How  could  it  have  been  thoroughly 
gone  into  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Do  you  understand  the  question  ?  The  question 
is  addressed  as  to  how  you  could  contend  that  that  evidence,  which 
"was  not  then  available  to  the  Tydings  committee,  was  in  fact  sup- 
pressed ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  the  Tydings  committee,  I  think,  investi- 
gated me  very  thoroughly,  and  they  stated  in  their  conclusions : 

Having  found  on  the  evidence  before  us  that  Mr.  Lattimore  is  not  an  employee 
of  our  State  Department,  that  he  is  not  tlie  architect  of  our  far  eastern  policy, 
and  that  he  is  not  a  spy,  our  cousidei'ation  of  him  should  be  concluded,  since  to 
do  otherwise  would  place  us  in  the  anomalous  position  of  passing  judgment  on 
the  ideological  disposition  of  a  private  citizen.  We  are  constrained,  however, 
to  make  some  observations  relative  to  the  case  in  its  entirety,  not  only  as  a 
matter  of  elementary  fairness  to  Mr.  Lattimore,  who  traveled  half  way  around 
the  world  to  answer  the  charges  against  him,  but  the  scholars  and  writers 
throughout  the  country  and  the  American  public  generally.  Owen  Lattimore 
is  a  writer  and  a  scholar  who  has  been  charged  with  a  record  of  procommunism 
going  back  many  years.  There  is  no  legal  evidence  before  us  whatever  to  support 
this  charge,  and  the  weight  of  all  other  information  indicates  that  it  is  not  true. 
We  find  absolutely  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  his  writings  and  other  expressions 
have  been  anything  but  honest  opinions  and  convictions  of  Owen  Lattimore. 
Similar  opinions  and  convictions  vis-S-vis  the  Far  East  are  entertained  by  many 
Americans  about  whom  no  conceivable  suggestion  of  Communist  proclivities 
could  be  entertained.  We  do  not  find  that  Mr.  Lattimore's  writings  follow  the 
Communist  or  any  other  line,  save  as  his  very  consistent  position  on  the  Far 
East  may  be  called  the  Lattimore  line. 

Senator  Jexner.  That  is  an  opinion  of  a  committee  without  the 
evidence  that  this  committee  has  had  before  it.  The  Tydings  com- 
mittee did  not  have  this  evidence  before  it,  and  that  is  an  opinion 
they  reached  on  the  evidence  before  their  committee.  But  since  that 
committee  has  concluded  its  hearings,  the  files  and  the  records  of  the 
IPR  have  been  disclosed,  and  we  have  obtained  them  in  a  barn  up 
here  in  Connecticut  or  some  place.     Now,  this  hearing  is  based  upon 


2952  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

a  different  set  of  facts,  and  so  how  could  you  say  that  the  counsel  has 
suppressed  evidence  that  was  never  before  the  Tydings  committee  in 
the  first  place,  and  how  could  you  say  that  the  Tydings  committee 
thorough!}^  went  into  this  when  they  did  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  the  evidence  that  has  been  used  against 
me  before  this  subcommittee  comes  only  in  very  small  part  from  the 
files  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations,  illegally  taken  by  this  sub- 
committee  

Senator  Smith.  Wait  a  minute.     Did  you  say  "illegally"? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  second.  I  do  think  Mr.  Lattimore  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  complete  his  sentence. 

Senator  Smith.  I  did  not  understand  whether  he  said  "legally"  or 
"illegally." 

Mr.  Lattimore,  Illegally. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  main  evidence  that  has  been  used  against  me 
is  a  regurgitation,  with  an  additional  birth  now  and  then,  of  the  stuff 
that  was  put  up  before  the  Tydings  subcommittee  and  dealt  with 
there. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  answer,  now,  why  you  used  the 
phrase  that  the  evidence  was  "obtained  illegally"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  basing  that  on  the  statement  of,  as  I  recall, 
Mr.  Holland,  in  his  appearance  befoi'e  this  subcommittee. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  accustomed  just  to  repeat  a  statement 
on  the  legality  or  illegality  of  a  matter  because  one  particular  wit- 
ness says 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  Mr.  Holland,  when  he  was  questioned 
about  that,  replied  that  he  was  making  a  statement  on  advice  of 
counsel. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Why,  Mr.  Lattimore,  are  you  defending  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Relations?  I  can  see  a  reason  tliat  you  miglit  be 
greatly  upset  on  your  own  problems,  but  why  do  you  bring  up  this 
question  now  of  defense  on  the  legality  or  illegality  of  this  committee 
getting  records  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  ? 

Mr.LATTiMORE.  Senator,  I  am  dealing  with  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Relations  only  as  it  is  being  used  in  this  attempt  to  make  me  out  to  be 
wliat  I  am  not  and  never  have  been. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  think  if  the  evidence  does  prove  that 
the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  was  penetrated  by  Communists,  that 
that  casts  a  reflection  upon  you,  and  therefore  you  are  making  these 
statements  today,  in  your  own  defense  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Would  you  repeat  that  question  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  We  will  have  it  read. 

You  may  consult  counsel. 

(Mr.  Lattimore  conferred  with  his  counsel.) 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  have  raised  the  question  of  legality  of  this 
conunittee  obtaining  evidence,  and  you  say  that  this  committee  ob- 
tained "illegally,"  and  you  are  accusing  this  committee  of  illegally 
obtaining  evidence  and  using  tliat  evidence  that  it  illegally  obtained. 
Now,  that  evidence  is  only  evidence  from  the  IPR  and  not  from  you. 
I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  it  is  your  contention  that  if  the  IPR 
is  found  to  luive  been  penetrated  by  Communists,  that  that  will  cast  a 
reflection  on  you,  and  that  is  the  reason  that  j^ou  are  raising  this  ques- 
tion of  legality  or  illegality  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2953 

Mr.  Lattimore.  xVren't  you  raising  two  questions,  Senator  Fer- 
guson ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes.     You  can  answer  them,  and  I  made  an 

explanation. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  One  question  is  about  the  legality  of  obtaining  the 
files,  and  the  other  question  is  about  the  validity  of  any  evidence  con- 
tained in  the  files. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  talking  about  your  defense.  You  brought 
up  the  question,  indicating  in  this  record  that  this  committee  illegally 
obtained  evidence,  Mr.  Lattimore ;  and  I  asked  you  the  question  where 
you  got  that  opinion,  and  you  said  from  Mr.  Holland's  statement  to 
this  committee. 

Mr.  Lait'Imore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  then  I  went  on  to  ask  the  question  about 
whether  or  not  you  took  other  people's  opinion  on  these  questions  of 
legality  or  not,  and  repeated  them;  and  then  I  came  back  to  your 
defense  of  the  IPR. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  it  is  my  belief,  Senator,  throughout  my  con- 
nection with  the  IPR,  that  it  was  never  controlled  by  Connnunists. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Was  it  ever  penetrated? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  A  number  of  people  who  have  refused  to  answer 
whether  they  were  Communists  or  not,  and  therefore  presumptively 
may  be  or  may  have  been  Connnunists,  worked  in  the  IPR.  That  is  a 
far  cry  from  saying  that  they  controlled  or  influenced  either  the  IPR 
or  me. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  asked  you  the  question :  Was  the  IPR  pene- 
trated? And  is  there  any  evidence,  in  your  opinion,  in  this  record 
that  the  IPR  was  penetrated  by  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  "penetration"  is  your  word,  and  may  I 
ask  you  what  you  mean  by  it  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Influenced ;  let  us  use  that  word  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  the  IPR  may  have  been  penetrated  in  the 
sense  that  Communists  had  jobs  in  the  IPR.  I  have  yet  to  see  evidence 
that  Communists  controlled  the  IPR. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  think  that  you  have  made  the  statement  that, 
in  your  opinion,  Field,  who  was  connected  with  the  IPR,  is  a 
Communist. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  certainly  my  impression. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  say  that  he  became  a  Communist,  I 
think,  in  the  1940's,  did  you  use  that  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  that  I  used  that.  Somebody  else  used 
it  and  I  am  quite  willing  to  accept  it.     I  did  say  the  forties. 

Senator  Ferguson.  In  1940.  Do  you  think  that  the  position  that 
Mr.  Field  held  in  the  IPR,  as  a  Communist,  on  your  own  statement 
that  he  was  a  Communist,  had  any  influence  on  the  IPR? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  the  record  is  that  everything  published 
by  the  IPR  was  always  circulated  to  many  readers  of  diverse  quali- 
fications of  knowledge  and  diverse  opinions  before  being  published. 
I  think  that  that  is  by  far  the  strongest  safeguard  that  any  private 
institution  can  have  on  its  output  not  being  biased  by  the  propaganda 
of  the  Communists  or  anybody  else. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  ask  you  about  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And,  therefore,  I  believe  that  it  is  not  true  that 
Field,  or  any  other  Communist,  controlled  the  IPR  or  its  output. 


2954  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  you  have  used  the  word  "controlled,"  and 
I  have  asked  for  the  word  "influence."  You  have  taken  the  defense 
again  that  they  had  a  mechanism  to  avoid  being  controlled,  and  I  am 
not  talking  about  whether  they  tried  to  avoid  or  not. 

Mr.  Lattimorp:.  I  will  accept  your  word.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Influence? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes;  influence.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  work  of 
the  IPB,  was  influenced  in  a  Communist  direction  or  in  the  service  of 
Comnumist  propaganda  by  Field  or  anyone  else. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  then,  the  difficulty,  I  think,  between  you 
and  me  on  this  problem  is  that  you  take  for  granted  that  Communists 
do  not  have  the  capacity  and  the  ability  to  penetrate  and  influence, 
in  a  devious  way  even,  against  the  great  efl^ort  of  honest  people. 

My  experience  on  this  committee,  and  I  must  tell  you,  Mr.  Lattimore, 
is  such  that  the  devious  activities  of  Communists,  and  the  way  they 
work  and  manipulate  and  the  way  they  have  worked  and  manipulated 
all  over  the  world,  leads  me  to  believe  that  you  cannot  set  up  in  any 
organization  that  has  them  in  responsible  positions  any  mechanism  to 
keep  out  their  activities  and  their  influence,  and  I  think  the  only  way 
that  you  can  do  it  is  not  to  have  them  in. 

Now,  you  may  disagree.     Do  you  disagree  on  that  ? 

Mr.  LAi^riMORE.  On  that  all  I  can  say  is  that  I  am  not  an  expert 
on  Communists  or  communism.  I  do  have  some  experience  in  re- 
search woi'k  and  editing  and  some  experience  of  putting  out  a  good 
product  that  is  free  of  propaganda.  I  Avill  go  no  further  than  to  say 
that  tlie  IPR  was  run  in  such  a  manner  that  it  had  the  maximum 
safeguards  that  a  private  institution  can  have  in  protecting  itself 
against  these  dangers.  Wliether  it  was  absolutely  successful  in  every 
sentence,  half-sentence,  and  comma  is  a  matter  on  which  opinions 
might  well  differ. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  we  could 
trust  a  Communist  in  a  responsible  position  in  IPR;  that  he  would 
not  try  and  actually  influence  for  communism  ?  What  is  your  opinion 
on  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  opinion  is  that  I  would  not  knowingly  employ 
any  Communist  in  the  IPR.  or  a  similar  organization.  To  that  I  can 
only  add,  as  I  have  said  in  my  statement,  that  in  the  1930's,  no  private 
organization  was  running  a  private  FBI  to  sift  and  check  its  personnel, 
and  that  our  sole  standard  was  not  to  promote  any  propaganda,  but  to- 
promote  free  presentation  of  information  and  discussion  of  that  in- 
formation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Lattimore,  today — let  us  look 
at  it  as  of  today — that  any  Communist  can  fairly  present  the  facts  and' 
not  actually  use  facts  as  propaganda  to  further  communism? 

Mr.  Latti3iore.  Senator,  I  have  just  stated  that  I  would  not  myself 
knowingly  employ  a  Communist,  and  it  is  for  those  reasons  that  I 
wouldn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  answers  my  question ;  you  and  I  agree  on 
that. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Would  you  resume,  then,  Mr.  Lattimore?  One 
suggestion  occurs  to  me,  which  I  would  like  to  see  if  counsel  and  all 
agree  on  :  That  it  appears  that  from  this  point  up  until  page  9,  there  is 
one  segment  of  the  matter  that  possibly  could  be  given,  to  the  best  in-- 


INSTITUTE    or    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2955 

terests  of  all,  uninterruptedly ;  and  so,  if  that  is  given  as  a  whole,  it 
might  admit,  then,  of  better  discussion  and  consideration. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  That  is  splendid.  Senator. 

Senator  O'Conor.  For  the  purpose  of  expedition,  I  offer  that  as  a 
suggestion,  that  you  should  proceed,  and  that  would  be  a  very  proper 
way  in  which  to  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  cite  just  one  example,  a  ratlier  striking  one — 
that  of  Louis  F.  Buclenz. 

The  proceedings  of  the  Tydings  committee  show  that  Budenz's  ac- 
cusations of  me  before  that  subcommittee  were  a  complete  fabrication 
concocted  for  the  specific  purpose  of  his  appearance  tliere.  They  show 
(1)  that  until  he  was  recruited  to  tell  his  fantastic  yarn,  Budenz  never 
mentioned  me  to  the  FBI  despite  liundreds  of  hours  of  testimony 
(transcript,  p.  1116)  ;  (2)  that  in  1949  when  he  wrote  an  article  for 
Collier's,  denouncing  many  persons  for  their  participation  in  the 
Chinese  situation,  Budenz  made  no  mention  of  me  (transcript,  p. 
1096)  ;  (3)  that  when  he  published  a  book  in  1950  dealing  with  the 
same  subject,  he  made  no  reference  to  me  in  his  manuscript,  inserting 
a  passing  mention  only  after  I  was  publicly  attacked  by  Senator 
McCarthy  (transcript,  p.  1115).  All  of  this  material  was  available  to 
your  committee,  and  your  counsel,  Mr.  Robert  Morris,  was  thorouglily 
familiar  with  it,  but  not  one  syllable  of  it  was  entered  in  your  record 
nor  was  Mr.  Budenz  asked  a  single  question  concerning  it. 

In  connection  with  this  man  Budenz,  Senators,  I  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  personal  history  and  character  of  Louis  Budenz 
was  thoroughl}'  gone  into  in  the  hearings  before  the  Tydings  commit- 
tee in  1950. 

This  man,  when  he  became  a  functionary  of  the  Communist  Party, 
was  neither  a  dupe  nor  a  visionary.  He  was  a  hard-bitten  man  of  44, 
and  his  own  sworn  testimony,  contained  in  the  official  transcript  of  the 
deportation  proceedings  entitled  "In  the  Matter  of  Desideriu  Ham- 
mer, Alias  John  Santos,  Respondent  in  Deportation  Proceedings  File 
No.  A-6002664"  shows  that  he  was  already,  before  becoming  a  Com- 
munist, a  man  of  immoral  life. 

I  exposed  him  as  a  liar  before  the  Tydings  committee.  Since  then 
a  distinguished  newspaperman,  Mr.  Joseph  Alsop,  has  publicly  chal- 
lenged him  as  a  perjurer,  and  has  demanded  of  this  committee  that  the 
record  of  Budenz'  testimony  be  sent  over  to  the  Department  of  Justice 
for  examination  to  see  whether  he  should  be  prosecuted  for  perjury. 

Before  the  Tydings  committee,  Budenz  was  an  uneasy  and  evasive 
liar  who  weaseled  and  retreated  when  his  credibility  was  questioned, 
but  before  this  committee  every  question  that  was  addressed  to  him  was 
an  invitation  to  make  the  most  imaginative  and  inventive  use  of  what 
Mr.  Joseph  Alsop  has  aptly  called  "the  built-in  pick-up"  in  his  mem- 
ory. Thus  admonished,  drilled,  and  exhorted  to  take  heart  and  fear 
not,  he  proceeded  to  bring  up  his  old,  disproved  charges  with  a  new 
assurance  and  with  new  embroideries  and  embellishments. 

In  the  Tydings  hearings,  Budenz  finally  said,  "I  have  never  seen  any 
vestige  of  his  [Lattimore's]  Communist  Party  membership."  Sena- 
tor Lodge  attempted  to  get  Budenz  to  state  "a  specific  instance  when 
an  order  or  an  instruction  was  given  [to  Lattimore]  and  carried  out" 
(p.  1134).  After  hesitating  and  weaseling,  Budenz  said:  "Well,  the 
order  to  represent  the  Chinese  Communists  as  agrarian  reformers 


2956  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

was  certainly  carried  out."  Then,  when  Senator  Lodge  asked,  "Is 
that  the  most  concrete  and  specific  illustration  there  is  ?"  Budenz  then 
said,  "That  is  the  most  concrete,  yes,  sir"  (p.  1134). 

Now,  it  was  clearly  established  in  the  Tydings  committee  hearings 
that  in  fact  I  had  never  called  the  Chinese  Communists  "agrarian 
reformers,"  nor  had  Pacific  Affairs  carried  articles  calling  them  agra- 
rian reformers,  with  the  si"ngle  exception  of  an  article  by  a  Chinese 
Communist,  which  was  clearly  labeled  as  such,  and  was  presented  as 
an  example  of  what  the  Chinese  Connnunists  were  saying.  It  was  thus 
clearl}^  brought  out  that  Budenz  was  not  only  lying  when  he  said  that 
I  "carried  out  an  order"  but  lying  in  the  dark  and  by  guesswork. 

Before  the  Tydings  committee,  Budenz  backed  away  when  asked  to 
show  whether  he  really  knew  anything  about  my  writings  or  opinions. 
Senator  Green  summed  it  up : 

Then,  you  say  you  have  never  seen  him,  never  talked  with  him,  never  liad  any 
communication  with  liim,  you  have  read  none  of  his  books  to  speak  of,  none  of 
liis  articles  to  speak  of. 

Now,  it  is  characteristic  of  this  man  and  of  this  dark  world  of 
intrigue,  that  your  counsel,  Mr.  Morris,  carefully  refrained  in  the 
hearings  before  you  from  asking  Budenz  whether  he  had  read  my 
writings.  If  he  had,  Budenz  would  have  had  the  choice  of  plain,  not 
fancy,  perjury  or  confessing  that  he  had  no  basis  for  his  charges. 
Instead,  Mr.  Morris  and  Budenz  sought  to  achieve  just  as  good  a  gen- 
eral effect.  Mr.  Morris  obligingly  asked  "Subsequent  to  that  time,  did 
you  follow  the  publication  Pacific  Affairs?"  and  Budenz  obligingly 
replied,  "Yes,  although,  of  course,  today  that  is  not  all  fresh  in  my 
memory." 

Before  the  Tydings  committee  it  was  brought  out  that  when  Bu- 
denz was  in  conference  with  an  editor  of  Collier's  magazine  and  not 
protected  by  congressional  immunity,  he  stated  (p.  1096)  that  he  was 
not  saying  I  "acted  as  a  Communist  agent  in  any  way."  Before  this 
subcommittee,  however,  knowing  he  would  be  protected,  he  lied  glibly 
and  obligingly  (p.  1016). 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  think  I  will  ask  a  question  there.  Do  you 
think  that  Mr.  Budenz  is  protected  from  perjury  as  far  as  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice  is  concerned  for  his  statement  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  a  legal  question.  I  do  not  know  what 
the  answer  is. 

Senator  Smith.  You  made  the  statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  have  made  the  statement. 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  May  he  confer  with  counsel  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  He  has  made  that  statement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  is  protected  from  libel  action  by  me,  I  under- 
stand. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes;  but  not  from  perjury.  Mr.  Lattimore,  as 
I  understand  it,  you  feel  that  this  whole  question  of  perjury,  as  far 
as  you  are  concerned  and  as  far  as  Mr.  Budenz  is  concerned,  ought 
to  be  referred  to  the  Justice  Department.  Your  counsel  has  just  said 
that  they  can  take  it  up  on  reference. 

There  is  not  any  doubt  that  you  accuse  Budenz  of  perjury,  is  there? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  Senator,  I  have  been  reminded  several  times  that 
this  committee  makes  its  own  procedure.     If  this  committee,  in  its 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2957 

discretion,  wants  to  refer  my  case  to  the  Justice  Department  they  are, 
of  course,  free  to  do  so.  My  opinion  is  the  case  of  Budenz  should 
be  referred  to  the  Justice  Department. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  understand.  Now,  of  course,  if  they  are  going 
to  convict  Mr.  Budenz  of  perjury  as  to  what  he  said  to  you,  then 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  didn't  say  anything. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No;  about  you  in  this  committee.  The  only 
way  that  it  could  be  referred  would  be  to  refer  to  your  statements 
and  his  statements,  so  that  the  Justice  Department 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  Mr.  Alsop's,  and  Mr.  Vincent's  statements, 
and  Mr.  Wallace's  statements. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  refer  them  all  to  the  Department  of  Jus- 
tice.   Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  in  your  discretion,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  From  what  you  are  saying  here,  accusing  Bu- 
denz of  absolute  perjury,  do  I  understand  that  you  do  accuse  him  of 
perjury  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  not  a  lawyer. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  trying  to  get  some  information.  If  you 
do,  then  I  would  recommend  to  this  committee  that  they  do  refer  this 
matter. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  not  aware  of  the  precise  legal  dis- 
tinctions here  between  a  liar,  a  liar  under  oath,  and  a  perjurer.  You 
are  a  lawyer.  I  will  just  ask  you  which  of  those  terms  is  the  strong- 
est ?    Tell  me  the  strongest  one  and  that  is  the  one  that  I  want  to  use. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Perjury  implies  that  he  willfully  testified  false- 
ly, knowingly. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Is  that  the  strongest  term  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  think  that  is  the  strongest. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  O.  K.,  that  is  my  term.     He  is  a  perjurer. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  if  you  say  that  now,  then  I  say  that  I  will 
recommend  to  this  committee  that  the  matter  be  referred  to  the  De- 
partment of  Justice. 

Senator  Watkins.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  thing. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Senator  Watkins,  if  you  would  not  mind,  we 
would  like  for  him  to  complete  this  segment. 

Senator  Watkins.  It  is  on  the  very  same  thing.  I  noticed  that  he 
said,  before  the  Tydings  committee,  it  was  brought  out  that  when 
Budenz  was  in  conference  with  an  editor  of  Collier's  magazine  and 
not  protected  by  congressional  immunitj' — as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  was 
protected  by  congressional  immunity  when  he  was  before  the  Tydings 
committee,  was  he  not,  the  same  as  he  would  be  here? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  have  to  ask  a  legal  question  on  that. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  are  giving  a  legal  opinion. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  conference  that  he  had  with  Collier's  is  out- 
side of  the  Congress. 

Senator  Watkins.  The  testimony  of  Budenz  was  when  Budenz  was 
before  the  committee,  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  point  I  am  making  is  simply  that  when  Budenz 
was  out  of  the  shelter  of  the  Congress  and  was  asked  a  straight  ques- 
tion by  somebody,  he  refused  to  lie. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  interpreted  your  statement  to  mean  that  you 
are  referring  only  to  the  Collier's  conference. 

88348— 52— pt.  9 5 


2958  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  referring  only  to  the  Collier's  conference. 

Senator  O'Conor.  That  is  in  indicating  that  that  was  not  protected 
by  the  immunity  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Watkins.  As  I  get  it  from  the  sentence  there,  it  seems 
rather  vague  and  indefinite. 

Before  the  Tydings  committee  it  was  brought  out — 

Was  it  brought  out  from  Budenz  or  was  it  brought  out  from  some- 
body else  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  continue  with  the  statement. 

Morris.  Was  Lattimore  discussed  as  a  Communist? 

Budenz.  Instructions  were  given  to  him  as  a  member  of  the  Communist  cell ; 
yes,  sir. 

I  recall  to  your  minds  that  Mr.  Morris  was  present  throughout  the 
Tdyings  committee  hearings  and  knew  that  Budenz  had  backed  away 
from  saying  that  I  had  acted  as  "a  Communist  agent  in  any  way." 
Yet  this  same  Mr.  Morris  is  the  one  who  invited  Budenz,  from  the 
borrowed  immunity  of  his  presence  before  this  subcommittee,  to  testi- 
fy that  I  received  instructions  as  a  member  of  a  Communist  cell.  If 
the  precise  phrases  used  mean  anything  different,  it  is  too  subtle  for 
me.  To  my  non-Communist  mind,  Budenz  said  one  thing  to  Collier's, 
and  the  opjjosite  here. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Sour  wine,  you  indicated  you  had  some  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  several  questions  over  that 
matter  that  has  just  been  traversed. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  just  wanted  to  say,  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  realize, 
in  referring  this  matter  of  Budenz  to  the  Justice  Department,  they 
would  then  have  to  determine  who  committed  the  perjury.  Is  that 
not  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  mean  whether  Budenz 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes,  in  bringing  a  charge. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  imagine  Budenz  will  be  referred  to  the  Justice 
Department.  It  would  be  a  question  of  whether  Budenz  committed 
perjury. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  then  you  would  not  want  your  testimony 
referred  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  mean  that  the  price  of  accusing  anybody  of 
perjui-y  is  to  be  accused  of  perjury  yourself? 

Senator  Ferguson.  One  of  the  statements  has  to  be  false.  That  is 
correct.  Either  you  are  correct  or  Budenz  is  correct.  That  is,  to  de- 
termine whether  Budenz  is  guilty  of  perjury. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  belief  that  Budenz  is  a  perjurer  could  be 
proved  or  disproved. 

Senator  Smith.  ^^Hiat  he  means,  Mr.  Lattimore,  as  I  understand 
that  which  Senator  Ferguson  is  driving  at,  is  that  you  and  Mr.  Budenz 
have  made  diametrically  opposed  statements.    That  is  true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Smith.  Statements  of  fact,  and  both  of  you  have  made 
them  under  oath.    That  is  true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Smith.  Now  then,  if  one  is  right  the  other  is  wrong.  The 
one  that  is  wrong  is  the  one  that  has  committed  perjury.     That  is 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2959 

what  Senator  Ferguson  is  getting  at.  There  would  have  to  be  an 
inquiry  by  the  Department'as  to  whether  you  or  Mr.  Budenz  had  been 
the  one  to  commit  perjury. 

Senator  Watkins.  And  if  they  determined  that  you  are  the  one 
who  told  the  untruth,  then  you  would  be  prosecuted  for  perjury. 
That  is  what  they  should  do. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  know  that  I  am  not  a  liar  of  any 
kind.  I  believe  that  the  evidence  shows  that  Budenz  is  a  perjurer. 
I  should  like  to  see  the  indications  of  Mr.  Budenz's  perjury  followed 
up,  and  lead  where  they  may. 

Senator  Watkins.  1  think  that  it  proper.  It  should  be  referred,  of 
course. 

Senator  Ferguson.  These  two  gentlemen  cannot  both  be  right.  He 
says  that  they  are  opposite. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  to  ask 
a  few  questions  over  the  several  pages  which  the  witness  has  just  fin- 
ished reading  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Will  you  proceed  please,  Mr.  Sourwine? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  On  page  4,  Mr.  Lattimore,  under  the  sub  point  that 
you  have  numbered  3,  you  refer  to  a  manuscript  presumably  the  manu- 
script of  a  book  published  by  Mr.  Budenz  in  1950.  Have  you  ever  seen 
that  manuscript  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  never  seen  the  manuscript  myself.  The 
question  was  brought  up  in  the  hearings  before  the  Tydings  subcom- 
mittee. I  would  recommend  that  they  be  reviewed  by  this  subcom- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  page  references  which  you  give  here,  are  they 
to  the  printed  hearings  or  to  the  typed  and  mimeographed  transcript? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  They  are  to  the  typed  and  mimeographed  tran- 
script. 

Mr,  Sourwine.  In  the  paragraph  at  the  bottom  of  page 

Senator  Smith.  One  moment,  please.  Right  there.  Professor  Latti- 
more, you  said  "he  made  no  reference  to  me  in  his  manuscript." 

If  you  did  not  see  and  had  not  seen  the  manuscript,  how  could  you 
make  that  statement  under  oath  yourself  ? 

JNIr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  believe  that  if  the  committee  will  in- 
vestigate that  transcript,  which  has  not  apparently  been  done  yet, 
it  will  be  found  that  I  made  that  statement  on  the  admission  of 
Budenz, 

Senator  Smith.  I  never  asked  you  that.  You  said  "in  his  manu- 
script." 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Yes, 

Senator  Smith.  You  said  "he  made  no  reference  to  me  in  his  manu- 
script." You  just  said  a  moment  ago,  as  I  understood  it,  that  you  had 
not  seen  the  manuscript. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  the  result  of  questioning  of  Mr.  Budenz. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  still  understand  you  are  testifying  under 
oath  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore,  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Then  how  can  you  testify  under  oath  that  he  made 
no  reference  to  you  in  the  manuscript  if  you  had  not  seen  the  manu- 
script? I  just  want  to  test  the  ability  of  you  to  make  statements  of 
that  sort. 


2960  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore  (reading) : 

Mr.  MoBGAN.  Now  going  back,  Mr.  Budenz ■ 

Senator  Smith.  What  are  you  reading  from  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  transcript  of  the  Tydings  subcommittee. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  something  that  was  beyond  your  knowl- 
edge was  it  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  there,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  I  asked  you  the  simple  question  how  could  you 
swear  that  he  made  no  references  in  the  manuscript  after  you  said 
you  had  not  seen  the  manuscript  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  have  here  a  statement  that  "The  proceed- 
ings of  the  Tydings  committee  show — ".  And  it  repeats  "they 
show — ."  Now  everything  that  follows  below  there  is  a  reference  to 
what  the  proceedings  of  the  Tydings  committee  shows.  It  is  not  a 
statement  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Senator  Smith.  You  said  he  made  no  reference  "to  me  in  his  manu- 
script." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  said  that  comes,  Senator,  without  a  full  stop 
under  the  sentence  beginning  "They  show — — ." 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  so  far  as  you  are  concerned,  and  that  is 
,not  sworn  testimony  so  far  as  you  are  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  sworn  testimony  and  that  is  in  the  Tydings 
committee. 

Senator  Smith.  Is  that  a  statement  of  sworn  testimony  of  fact 
by  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  you  are  getting  me  confused. 

Senator  Smith.  I  do  not  mean  to  confuse  you.  I  asked  you  a  simple 
question.  When  you  put  something  in  the  statement  here,  and  after 
yon  had  already  testified  you  had  not  seen  it,  the  manuscript,  that 
is  a  simple  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  testifying  that  I  did  not  see  the  manu- 
script, and  that  I  am  basing  my  statement  on  sworn  testimony  before 
the  Tydings  committee. 

Senator  Smith.  But  not  your  sworn  testimony,  not  your  sworn 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  didn't. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right.     That  is  what  I  was  getting  at. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  continue,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Yes,  Mr.  Sourwine,  will  you  continue,  please. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  full  paragraph  at  the  bottom  of  the  page 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  complete  that  reference  first  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  By  introducing  what  the  testimony  was  before  the 
Tydings  committee,  may  I  complete  it  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  have  given  your  page  reference,  Mr.  Lattimore, 
to  the  testimony  you  were  referring  to.  We  are  going  to  recess  here 
at  half  past  12.  That  has  been  stated.  May  counsel  have  permission 
to  traverse  what  you  have  already  read  as  to  your  statement? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  believe  the  chairman  ruled  on  that. 

Senator  O'Conor.  It  is  permissible  to  make  reference  to  the  tran- 
script of  the  other  proceedings  upon  which  the  witness  said  he  relied, 
and  you  can  do  that.    You  have  done  it  by  way  of  page  reference  now^ 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2961 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  my  feeling  is  that  reference  by  page  num- 
ber was  adequate  in  the  first  instance,  but  is  not  adequate  since  the 
questioning  by  Senator  Smith;  that  Senator  Smith's  ehiboration  by 
questioning  entitles  me  to  read  the  more  detailed  record  myself. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  another  problem  involved 
there,  there  is  a  problem  of  cross-examination  by  us  of  the  men  who 
made  the  statements  in  that  testimony,  and  therefore  that  ought  not  to 
go  into  this  record  except  by  reference.  We  do  not  want  to  adopt  that 
as  truthful  testimony  because  we  do  not  know. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think  it  is  a  very  simple  issue.  What  portion 
of  that,  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  reference  in  my  statement  is  to  page  1110.  The 
fuller  reference  would  be  page  1114,  beginning  with  Mr.  Morgan's 
questioning  of  Budenz  about  his  book,  and  the  course  of  publication, 
and  ending  with  the  answer  to  a  question,  by  Budenz,  near  the  top 
of  1115. 

Mr.  SouRWiisrE.  May  that  be  inserted  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  That  will  be  inserted  in  full. 

(The  material  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  460"  and  is  as 
follows :) 

State  Department  Emplotee  Loyalty  Investigation  Hearings  Before  a  Sub- 
committee OF  THE  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  United  States  Senate, 
Eighty-first  Congress 

[Pt.  1,  pp.  518-519] 

Mr.  Morgan.  Now,  going  back,  Mr.  Budenz,  to  a  further  matter,  I  believe  you 
have  presently  with  publishers  a  book;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Budenz.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Morgan.  What  is  the  title  of  the  book? 

Mr.  Budenz.  Men  Without  Faces. 

Mr.  Morgan.  And  who  publishes  it? 

Mr.  Budenz.  Harper  &  Bros. 

Mr.  Morgan.  What  theme  have  you  developed  in  this  book? 

Mr.  Budenz.  Well,  the  name  suggests  the  theme.  The  name  is  not  arbitrary. 
It  is  because  of  the  fact  that  we  were  forbidden  to  photograph  most  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Communist  Party — that  is,  Biddleman,  Tractenberg,  or  the  secret 
heads  of  the  Communist  Party — we  had  a  rule  we  were  forbidden  to  photograph 
them.  That  is  why  the  name  of  the  book,  because  it  indicates  the  Soviet  fifth 
column  in  this  country.  The  book  exposes  the  Soviet  fifth  column  in  this  country. 
I  know,  because  I  am  in  it. 

Mr.  Morgan.  Do  you  develop  in  this  book  this  picture  which  you  are  giving 
us  todfty,  this  picture  about  the  1937  and  the  1943  and  the  1944  incidents? 

Mr.  Budenz.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Morgan.  Do  you  refer  to  Mr.  Lattimore  in  this  book? 

Mr.  Budenz.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not,  and  there  is  a  specific  reason,  because  if  I  were 
to  refer  to  Mr.  Lattimore  I  would  be  in  the  same  peculiar  situation  I  was  in 
in  the  Wallace  situation.  In  fact,  the  Wallace  situation  w^as  the  cause  of  my 
not  putting  Mr.  Lattimore  in  this  book.  The  only  time  that  I  put  Mr.  Lattimore 
in  the  book  was  to  identify  Mr.  John  S.  Service. 

Mr.  Morgan.  What  was  that? 

Mr.  Budenz.  Mr.  John  S.  Service.  Service.  And  because  I  made  a  slight  error 
of  fact  about  Mr.  Service,  saying  that  he  had  advised  Mr.  Wallace,  I  corrected 
that  to  say  "advised  Mr.  Wallace  in  the  Government  with  Owen  J.  Lattimore." 
That  is  being  made  because  of  the  error.    Now,  the  thing 

Senator  Smith.  That  will  not  be  admitted  in. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No,  that  will  just  be  inserted  into  the  record. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  This  paragraph  at  the  bottom  of  page  4,  sir,  where 
you  say  that  the  personal  history  and  character  of  Louis  Budenz  was 
thoroughly  gone  into  in  the  hearings  before  the  Tydings  committee  in 


2962  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS       ■ 

1950,  by  whom  was  that  gone  into  ?  "Who  testified  with  regard  to  the 
personal  history  and  character  of  Louis  Budenz?  Not  in  addition 
to  anything,  but  who  testified  in  regard  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  was  some  testimony  by  Budenz  in  examina- 
tion, I  believe,  and  then  there  was  also  the  official  transcript  of  the 
deportation  proceedings. 

Mr.  SouEwiNE.  You  are  talking  about  the  Santos  transcript  that 
you  mentioned  at  the  top  of  the  next  page,  that  is  what  you  are 
referring  to  when  you  say  it  was  thoroughly  gone  into  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Partly  that  and  partly,  I  believe,  the  interrogation. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Of  Mr.  Budenz  himself  ? 

Mr.  Lattemore.  Himself,  yes.  I  haven't  got  that  reference  exactly 
at  the  moment. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  offering  that 
Santos  transcript? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  Santos  transcript,  Mr.  Sourwine,  was  sub- 
mitted to  my  counsel,  Mr.  Fortas,  and  I  would  prefer  to  have  him 
answer  on  that. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  where  he  got  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  where  he  got  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine,  Did  he  ever  tell  you  where  he  got  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Did  you  ever  tell  me  where  you  got  it? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  we  are  asking  you. 

Mr.  Fortas.  May  he  consult  with  counsel  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  he  didn't. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Was  there  any  cross-examination  ? 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  can  make  a  statement  as  counsel,  on  this,  if  you  want 
me  to. 

Senator  P^erguson.  I  think  we  ought  to  let  the  questioning  go  on  and 
find  out  what  the  witness  knows  first,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  whether  there  was  any  questioning 
about  that  Santos  transcript  as  such? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  I  remember,  it  was  handed  up  in  a  sealed  en- 
velope with  the  suggestion  that  the  Tydings  committeee  should  con- 
sider it,  and  advising  them  to  consult  their  discretion  on  putting  it  into 
the  record. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Was  it  printed  as  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  Tydings 
hearings  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  it  was. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Who  handed  it  up,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  I  remember,  sir — I  can  check  with  my  counsel, 
but  my  memory  is  that  my  counsel  handed  it  to  counsel  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Fortas  handed  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  Mr.  Morgan,  I  believe,  or  to  the  chairman  of 
the  committee.     You  can  ask  him. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Had  you  seen  it  before? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  not  seen  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  had  not  seen  it  before  it  was  handed  up  in 
a  sealed  envelope? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Have  you  ever  seen  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2963 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  how  do  you  make  this  statement  in  tliis 
record  if  you  have  never  seen  this  matter? 

Mr.  FoKTAS.  Do  you  want  a  statement  of  counsel  ? 

Senator  Fergusoist.  No;  I  want  to  know  how  he  makes  this  state- 
ment. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Fortas,  I  think  at  this  juncture  it  is  proper 
for  the  Senator  to  ask  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  is  the  page  number  that  you  are  reading 
from  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  From  page  No.  5. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Was  it  summarized,  Mr.  Lattimore,  before  the 
Tydings  committee  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  accused  him  of  being  an  immoral  person, 
a  man  of  immoral  life,  and  you  give  a  proceeding  in  a  record  that  you 
have  never  seen.  Do  you  not  indicate  to  this  committee,  when  you 
make  that  statement,  that  you  did  see  it  and  you  were  testifying  to 
that  as  a  fact,  that  that  record  did  show  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  can  check  with  my  counsel  to  see  what 
his  memory  of  tliis  is,  but  my  recollection  is  that  he  handed  this  up 
to  the  counsel  or  to  the  committee,  and  that  I  asked  him  what  that  w^as, 
and  he  said  sometliing  about  it  is  too  filthy  for  you  to  need  to  read,  or 
something  of  that  sort. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  here  you  make  a  specific  charge  from  a  doc- 
ument, and  it  now  turns  out  that  you  had  some  information  from  your 
counsel  which  would  be  hearsay,  that  this  was  too  filthy  for  you  to 
read  or  to  bother  with,  as  your  words  go. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  this  is  hearsay.  It  can  be  checked  very 
easily.    Get  the  documents  and  look  at  them. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No;  I  am  asking  as  to  what  you  say  to  this 
committee.  You  are  asking  this  committee  to  believe  this  document. 
You  are  reading  it  as  testimony  and  you  are  past  that  point,  and  you 
ask  this  committee  to  believe  you  when  you  said  that  that  document 
contained  this  information.  Now  it  turns  out  that  you  never  saw  that 
document. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Let  the  record  show  that  the  witness  consulted 
with  his  counsel  in  the  meantime.     Proceed  with  your  answer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  just  consulted  with  my  counsel  and  he  re- 
minded me  of  something  that  I  had  forgotten,  that  Senator  Chavez 
had  made  reference  to  this  on  the  Senate  floor. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  joix  then  quoting  Senator  Chavez? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  be  glad  to  add  that  reference  to  the  testimony 
in  my  statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  It  still  makes  it  hearsay,  as  far  as  you  are  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  don't  know  exactly  what  fine  distinction 
you  are  driving  at.  Senator.  But  I  think  the  matter  is  easily  settled. 
Get  a  hold  of  the  transcript. 

Senator  Smith.  I  think  the  point,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  this  witness 
here  has  put  in  a  statement,  sworn  to  as  sworn  testimony,  and  now  he 
admits  that  he  had  never  seen  the  document  about  which  or  from  which 
he  was  quoting  or  making  statements. 

If  that  is  the  way  most  of  this  statement  of  yours  has  been  made  up, 
then  I  can  see  we  are  justified  in  thinking  that  this  is  jumbled  as  well 
as  the  testimony  in  the  rest  of  the  proceedings  has  been  jumbled,  as 


2964  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

you  suggest.   Wliy  did  you  make  that  statement,  Mr.  Lattimore,  if  you 
did  not  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  it  was  the  truth  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  if  you  would  like  me  to  read  it  and  make  it 
direct  testimony — I  understand  it  is  a  rather  distasteful  thing  to  read — 
I  will  go  through  with  it. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  not  asking  you  that.  I  am  not  asking  you 
that,  Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  asking  you  why  did  you  put  in  here  a  state- 
ment that  you  are  to  introduce  as  sworn  evidence  when  you  had  not 
even  read  the  statement  to  which  you  are  referring? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  the  record  of  the  Tydings  committee  shows 
that  it  was  submitted. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  you  do  not  know  is  in  it  yet,  do  you,  of  your 
own  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right.  Then  you  are  swearing  to  something  you 
did  not  know.    You  made  that  statement  here. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  that  Senator  Chavez  said  that  he  was  a  man 
of  immoral  life. 

Senator  Smith.  Senator  Chavez  can  speak  for  himself. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  be  glad  to  add  him. 

Senator  Smith.  You  made  a  statement  of  fact  there  that  you  did  not 
have  in  your  possession  at  the  time  you  made  it;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  made  the  statement  that  this  document  exists,  and 
that  its  contents  are  of  a  certain  character,  and  I  am  perfectly  pre- 
pared to  have  my  statement  tested  by  a  checking  of  the  contents. 

Senator  Smith.  And  you  say  that  it  showed  he  was  already,  before 
becoming  a  Communist,  a  man  of  immoral  life? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  my  understanding. 

Senator  Smith.  You  made  that  statement  without  even  reading  the 
document  to  which  you  refer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  made  that  statement,  Senator,  with  reference 
to  a  supporting  document,  which  is  a  great  deal  more  than  has  been 
done  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  evidence  offered  against  me  before  this 
subcommittee. 

Senator  Smith.  But  you  had  not  read  the  supporting  documents? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  supporting  docu- 
ments. 

Senator  Smith,  But  you  had  not  read  it.  Will  you  answer  a  simple 
question  ?    You  had  not  read  it,  had  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.    Senator,  do  not  badger  me  like  that. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  not  Ijadgering  you. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  it  was  a  question  you  could  answer 
"yes"  or  "no."    Nobody  is  badgering  you. 

_  Mr.  Lattimore.   I  have  already  answered,  I  have  done  it  several 
times,  and  he  is  badgering  me  to  say  it  again. 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  answer  is  "No,"  that  you  did  not  read  it 
prior  to  making  this  statement. 

Mr.  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  say  that  Senator  Chavez  used 
statements  upon  the  Senate  floor  in  relation  to  that  document;  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  relation  to  Budenz  and  this  document  was 
among  the  references  that  he  made. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2965 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes;  now  I  will  ask  you  the  question  as  to 
whether  or  not  you  know  where  Senator  Chavez  received  this  infor- 
mation that  he  repeated  on  the  floor,  or  that  he  stated  on  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  read  his  speech  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  read  his  speech. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  have  not  any  idea  where  he  received 
the  information? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  recall  now,  after  2  years,  whether  he  stated 
where  he  received  it  or  not.  I  can  just  make  reference  to  these 
proceedings. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  received  it 
from  your  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  no. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Had  you  talked  to  the  Senator  before  he  made 
the  statement? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  talk  to  him  after  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  do  not  know  where  he  received  the 
information  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  are  quoting  this  here,  that  Budenz 
was  of  immoral  life,  without  ever  seeing  the  document  or  to  know 
actually  of  your  own  knowledge  what  was  in  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes  •  with  very  specific  references  to  the  document 
making  it  easily  identifiable  and  verifiable. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  that  it  is  worse  to  accuse  a  man, 
without  personal  knowledge,  of  immoral  life  than  it  is  to  accuse  him 
of  being  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  referring  to  a  specific  docu- 
ment which  can  easily  be  verified.  That  is  not  in  the  same  class  as 
the  Irind  of  hearsay  evidence  that  has  been  offered  against  me. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  think  it  is  different  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  is  very  different. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  that  document  available  to  you,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  know  if  I  could  get  it  by  going  to  the 
archives  of  the  Tydings  committee  or  not. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  \I!hairman,  may  we  inquire  of  counsel  with  re- 
gard to  that  document  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  counsel  volunteered 
or  desired  to  state  how  it  was  procured. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  should  like  to  make  a  statement.  The  rules  of  this 
committee  say,  whatever  that  means,  that  counsel  may  not  testify ;  but 
this  is  a  statement  of  counsel,  that  I  ask  to  be  allowed  to  make  on  this 
subject. 

The  procedure  before  the  Tydings  committee  in  which  I  represented 
Mr.  Lattimore  included  a  provision  to  the  effect  that  counsel  for  any 
witness  might  hand  to  the  committee  counsel  written  questions  and 
supporting  material.  In  the  course  of  the  hearings  which  were  highly 
publicized,  as  you  will  recall,  concerning  Mr.  Lattimore  before  the 
Tydings  committee,  a  lawyer  here  in  Washington  telephoned  me  and 
said  that  he  had  a  transcript  which  would  be  of  interest  to  me.  I  told 
him  that  I  should  be  very  interested  to  receive  it. 


2966  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

The  transcript  came  over.  The  transcript  was  the  one  referred  to 
on  page  5  of  Mr.  Lattimore's  statement  here.  I  read  the  transcript. 
The  transcript  was  of  such  a  nature  and  made  reference  in  intimate 
detail  to  a  man's  personal  life,  that  man  being  Budenz.  The  character 
of  the  transcript  was  such  that  I  concluded  that  it  had  a  bearing  upon 
Mr.  Budenz's  credibility  as  a  witness.  But  it  was  also  such  that  I  con- 
cluded that  I  did  not  want  to  have  anything  to  do  with  making  it 
public. 

I  consulted  with  Mr.  Lattimore  about  that.  I  do  not  recall  whether 
he  read  the  transcript  or  not.  I  do  remember,  I  am  certain  that  I  des- 
cribed to  him  the  contents  of  the  transcript. 

I  then  put  the  transcript  in  a  sealed  envelope  and  handed  that  tran- 
script to  Mr.  Morgan,  who  was  then  counsel  of  the  Tydings  committee, 
and  I  believe  that^I — I  haven't  checked  this,  but  either  informally  or 
on  the  record  the  Tydings  committee  was  advised  that  the  transcript 
that  was  in  this  sealed  envelope,  that  its  nature  was  such  that  I  felt  that 
it  should  be  examined  by  the  committee — perhaps  this  was  in  Mr.  Lat- 
timore's statement,  perhaps  he  said  it — that  it  should  be  examined  by 
the  committee  privately  and  should  not  be  automatically  made  a  part  of 
the  record.  The  reason  for  that,  again,  being  that  the  transcript  con- 
tained matters  relating  to  Mr.  Budenz's  private  life  which  I  found  to 
be  quite  distasteful,  but  also  quite  relevant  to  the  issue  of  Mr.  Budenz's 
credibility,  that  being  a  legal  judgment. 

That  is  what  happened,  and  I  handed  the  transcript  up  and  I  don't 
recall  whether  there  was  any  further  reference  to  it  in  the  Tydings 
committee  proceeding. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  it  become  a  part  of  the  record  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Would  you  wait  just  a  moment? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  If  I  am  making  a  statement  as  counsel,  I  wish  to  finish. 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  will  be  permitted  to.  Go  ahead.  I  think, 
Senator  Ferguson,  he  ought  to  be  permitted  to  finish  the  statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  like  to  know,  first,  before  we  get  the 
statement,  whether  it  became  part  of  the  record  of  the  Tydings  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  I  assume  so.  Senator.  1  don't  know.  I  haven't  checked 
the  records. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  it  ever  appear  in  the  press  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  No.     I  was  going  on  to  the  next  part  of  the  story. 

Senator  Smith.  May  I  ask  you.  Did  Mr.  Budenz  ever  hear  of  it,  or 
was  he  ever  faced  with  it  ?  That  is  to  say,  did  he  ever  have  a  chance 
to  deny  it,  or  what? 

Mr.  Fortas.  Senator,  I  don't  recall.  I  haven't  checked  the  Tydings 
committee  records. 

The  next  part  of  the  story  is  that  Senator  Chavez  made  a  speech 
on  the  Senate  floor  attacking  Mr.  Budenz.  Perhaps  I  should  not 
characterize  the  Senator's  speech.  But  the  Senator  made  a  speech 
on  the  Senate  floor  in  which  he  made  reference  to  Mr.  Budenz,  and 
made  reference  to  this  transcript.  I  believe — I  haven't  checked  it — 
that  he  used  the  words  that  Mr.  Lattimore  has  used  in  this  statement. 

I  did  not  see  Senator  Chavez  before  that.  Senator  Chavez  did  not 
obtain  the  transcript  from  my  office.  We  did  not  have  the  transcript. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  transcript  was  never  returned  to  us. 

Now,  Mr.  Morris  wrote  an  article  for  the  Freeman  Magazine — is 
that  the  name  of  it?— in  which  he  said  that  Mr.  Lattimore  must  have 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2967 

obtained  this  transcript  from  a — I  don't  have  the  article,  and  this  is 
not  a  precise  quote — the  effect  of  it  wjis  that  Mr,  Lattimore  must  have 
obtained  the  transcript  from  a  Communist  lawyer. 

Mr.  Lattimore  did  not  obtain  the  transcript  at  all.  The  transcript 
came  into  my  possession  in  the  manner  that  I  have  described.  It  came 
to  me  from  a  Washington  lawyer;  and  if  the  committee  is  insistent 
upon  it.  I  will  give  the  committee  this  lawyer's  name,  with  his 
permission. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Sourwine,  had  you  asked  that? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  had  not  asked  who  the  lawyer  was  who  offered 
you  and  subsequently  gave  you  this  transcript. 

Mr.  FoRTxVS.  With  the  permission  of  the  lawyer  concerned,  I  state 
that  tlie  lawyer  who  gave  me  this  transcript  is  Joseph  F.  Fanelli,  of 
this  cit3\ 

I  hasten  to  say  that  I  have  known  him  for  many  years ;  that  in  my 
opinion  he  is  a  liighly  reputable,  very  fine,  non-Communist  member 
of  the  bar  of  this  city. 

Mr.  SouRWi>rE.  Has  counsel  completed  his  statement  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sour"\\t:ne.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hold  in  my  hand  first  a  telegram 
addressed  by  the  chairman  of  this  committee  to  Mr.  Edward  Shaugh- 
nessy,  district  director,  immigration,  70  Columbus  Avenue,  New  York, 
N.  Y.    I  ask  permission  to  read  it  into  the  record. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Proceed. 

Mr.  SouRWTXE.  It  is  dated  February  25, 1952,  and  reads  as  follows : 

Re  your  DD  files  letter  to  Victor  Lasky,  New  York  World-Telegram,  May  18, 
1950,  reading:  "Dear  Mr.  Lasky:  Reference  is  made  to  your  letter  of  May  16, 
1950,  relative  to  a  story  appearing  in  the  New  York  World-Telegiam  and  Sun 
of  May  16,  1950,  which  stated,  among  other  things,  that  only  one  copy  of  the 
hearings  involving  John  Santo  was  ever  released  by  immigration  authorities  and 
that  went  to  Harry  Sacher.  Our  records  here  disclose  that  only  one  copy  of 
the  deportation  hearings  in  the  John  Santo  case  was  furnished  to  any  one  not 
an  official  of  the  Department  of  Justice  and  that  was  to  Harry  Sacher,  attorney 
for  John  Santo.  I  do  not  have  any  dehnite  knowledge  as  to  how,  if  Mr.  Latti- 
more's  attorneys  procured  a  transcript  of  the  Santo  hearing,  it  was  accomplished. 
Sincerely  yours.  Edward  J.  Shaughnessy."  Confirm  contents  of  letter  by  reply 
wire. 

Senator  Pat  McCakran, 
Senate  Internal  Security  Suhcommittee. 

I  now  have,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  teletype  which  has  been  delivered  to 
the  committee  this  morning,  bearing  the  receipt  date  February  26, 
11 :  26  a.  m.,  1952,  marked  with  the  stamp  of  the  General  Services 
Administration,  confidential  copy,  reading  as  follows : 

Hon.  Pat  McCarran, 

United  States  Senate: 

Answering  your  telegram  of  yesterday,  content  of  my  letter  referred  to  is 
hereby  confirmed. 

Edw.  J.  Shattghnessy, 
District  Director,  Immigration  Service,  New  York  City. 

Senator  O'Conor.  They  will  be  admitted  into  evidence. 

(The  documents  referred  to  were  marked  "Exhibits  Nos.  461  and 
462,"  and  were  read  in  full.) 

Senator  O'Conor.  As  previously  announced,  we  will  take  a  recess  at 
this  time  for  1  hour.    The  committee  is  in  recess. 

(Wliereupon,  at  12 :  35  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed,  to  recon- 
vene at  1 :  35  p.  m.,  the  same  day.) 


2968  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

AFTER  RECESS 

Senator  Ferguson  (presiding).  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 
You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  recess  I  had  begun  asking 
Mr.  Lattimore  several  q^uestions  covering  pages  5  through  8  of  his 
statement  which  he  had  just  completed  reading.  We  were  discussing 
the  matter  of  the  Santos  transcript.  It  might  be  well  if  we  conclude 
the  discussion  of  that. 

I  should  like,  in  order  to  clear  up  one  point  with  regard  to  the 
Santos  transcript,  to  ask  a  question  of  counsel,  since  counsel  for  the 
witness  has  made  a  statement  about  that  matter.  Will  the  Chair  per- 
mit that  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  would  like  to  inquire  whether  you  know  whether 
Mr.  Fanelli,  from  whom  you  got  this  transcript,  was  associated  with 
Mr.  Sacher  in  the  Santos  case  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  do  not. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  Mr.  Lattimore,  is  it  your  testimony  that  the 
Santos  transcript  was  handed  up  to  Mr.  Morgan  at  the  Tydings  com- 
mittee hearings  by  Mr.  Fortas  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  my  recollection.  I  am  not  sure  whether 
it  was  handed  to  Mr.  Morgan  or  directly  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  did  you  not  hand  that  tran- 
script up  to  the  Tydings  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Maybe  I  did.    I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  did  you  not  tell  the  Tydings  committee  what 
they  would  find  on  certain  pages  of  that  transcript  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  may  have. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  If  you  did,  were  you  telling  them  about  those  pages 
irom  hearsay  or  had  you  examined  those  pages  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  not  examined  those  pages.  I  was  told  by 
my  counsel. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  tell  the  Tydings  committee  that  you  had 
been  told  by  your  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  I  did.  It  could  be  checked  by  refer- 
ence to  the  transcript. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes ;  we  have  the  reference  to  the  transcript. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  want  to  ask  to  read  it  at  this  time,  but  I 
request  that  it  be  marked,  the  paragraph  beginning  a  little  below 
the  middle  of  the  page  812  of  the  Tydings  hearings  and  continuing 
through  the  paragraph  that  ends  at  the  top  of  the  next  page,  and  be 
inserted  in  the  record  at  this  point. 

Senator  Ferguson.  It  may  be  inserted. 

(The  material  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  463,"  and  is  as 
follows :) 

Exhibit  No.   463 

State  Department  Employee  Loyalty  Investigation  Hearings  Before  a 
Subcommittee  of  the  Comimittee  on  Foreign  Relations,  United  States 
Senate,  Eighty-first  Congress 

[Pt.  1,  pp.  812-813] 

The  history  of  this  man's  participation  in  questionable  ventures  did  not  be- 
gin— as  it  certainly  did  not  end — with  his  party  membership.  Before  he  joined 
the  party  in  1935  he  was  a  radical,  left-wing  agitator.     He  has  been  arrested 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2969 

21  times,  tried  and  acquitted  21  times.     I  assume  that  he  was  not  guilty,  but  he 
was  most  certainly  remarkably  active. 

If  you  are  not  yet  convinced  of  this  man's  unsavory  character,  I  suggest  that 
you  read  his  sworn  testimony  on  cross-examination  contained  in  the  official  tran- 
script of  the  deportation  proceedings  entitled  "In  the  Matter  of  Desideriu 
Hammer,  alias  John  Santo,  Respondent  in  Deportation  Proceedings,  file  No. 
A-6002664." 

I  do  not  wish  to  discuss  the  matters  contained  in  this  transcript,  but  I  hand 
a  copy  to  the  subcommittee. 

Senator  Tydings.  It  will  be  put  in  the  record  as  exhibit  83. 

Dr.  Lattimoke.  I  suggest  that  the  committee  should  not,  in  advance  of  examin- 
ing this  transcript,  make  it  part  of  the  public  record. 

Senator  Tydings.  It  will  be  kept  sealed  and  noted  in  the  record  as  an  exhibit 
but  not  spread  in  the  testimony  until  the  committee  can  look  into  it. 

Dr.  Lattimore.  Beginning  at  page  143  of  the  transcript,  which  is  page  36  of 
the  typewritten  copy,  Budenz  admits  that  even  before  he  joined  the  Communist 
Party  he  engaged  in  certain  personal  activities  which,  to  say  the  least,  are  of- 
fensive to  accepted  standards  of  decent  and  conventional  behavior.  Beginning 
on  page  170  of  the  transcript,  which  is  page  50  of  the  typewritten  copy,  Budenz 
refuses  to  respond  to  a  series  of  questions  relating  to  his  personal  behavior  on 
the  grounds  that  his  answers  might  incriminate  him.  These  questions,  gentle- 
men, relate  to  two  different  alleged  relationships ;  and  they  all  concern  Budenz' 
activities  before  he  became  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  May  we  see  that,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes,  surely. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  On  page  5  of  your  statement,  Mr.  Lattimore,  you 
make  the  statement  that  Mr.  Budenz  weaseled  and  retreated.  Did 
you  intend  by  that  to  express  your  contempt  of  the  witness  who 
weasels  and  retreats  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  intended  by  that  to  characterize  Budenz'  manner 
as  it  appeared  to  me. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  were  not  intending  to  express  any  contempt 
for  Mr.  Budenz  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  was  not  intending  to  convey  the  impression  that 
he  was  an  Eagle  Scout,  if  that  is  what  you  mean. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  At  the  bottom  of  page  5,  you  quote  Mr.  Budenz  as 
saying,  in  the  Tydings  hearing,  "I  have  never  seen  any  vestige  of 
his"  referring  to  you,  "Communist  Party  membership." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Why  did  you  not  quote  the  next  sentence  after  that, 
in  Mr.  Budenz'  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  see  the  transcript  on  that  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  next  sentence  after  that  reads : 

What  I  have  received  is  these  official  reports  which  are  quite  binding  and  were 
binding  on  me  as  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party. 

Is  that  not  correct  ?  If  you  cannot  find  it  in  your  transcript,  you 
will  find  it  at  page  527,  the  fourth  paragraph  from  the  end,  of  the 
transcript  I  just  handed  you,  the  printed  transcript.  I  am  sorry, 
the  chairman  has  that  now. 

Do  you  have  it  now  ?  It  is  on  page  527,  the  fourth  paragraph  from 
the  end. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  527,  which  paragraph  did  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Maybe  I  have  the  wrong  page  reference.  It  is 
possible. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Fortas,  did  you  know  Harry  Sacher? 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  may  have  met  him  some  time.  I  know  that  I  have 
not  seen  him  within  my  present  recollection. 


2970  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  has  been  dis- 
barred as  far  as  the  Federal  court  of  New  York  is  concerned? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  have  seen  that  in  the  press,  Senator ;  yes.  The  case 
may  be  on  appeal.     I  don't  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes.  But  there  had  been  an  action  concerning 
him  in  at  least  the  lower  court  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Yes ;  that  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  he  was  sentenced  for  con- 
tempt of  court  in  the  so-called  11  Communist  trial  that  was  presided 
over  by  Judge  Medina? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  I  read  that  in  the  press ;  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  sentenced  to  6  months? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  don't  remember  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  it  has  been  con- 
firmed by  the  appellate  court  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  I  think  that  is  right.  I  think  it  is  before  the  Supreme 
Court  now. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  That  is  on  page  527,  the  fourth  paragraph  from 
the  end. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  find  that. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Will  you  read  that  whole  paragraph  there  ?  That 
is  Budenz's  testimony ;  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  LA'rriMORE  (reading)  : 

The  point  is  this :  I  would  say  of  course  the  question  of  personal  knowledge  is 
a  legal  question  in  a  certain  way,  but  I  would  say,  so  far  as  meeting  Mr.  Latti- 
more, as  seeing  him  in  meetings,  that  I  have  never  done  so,  that  I  have  never 
seen  any  vestige  of  his  Communist  Party  membership.  What  I  have  received 
is  these  official  reports  which  are  quite  binding  and  were  binding  on  me  as  a 
member  of  the  Communist  Party. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  That  is  all.  The  question  I  am  asking,  sir,  is  why, 
when  you  quoted  the  sentence  "I  have  never  seen  any  vestige  of  his 
Communist  Party  membership"  and  quoted  it  in  the  context  of  show- 
ing that  Mr.  Budenz  was  admitting,  as  you  contend,  that  he  had  no 
basis  for  any  assertion  with  regard  to  your  Communist  Party  member- 
ship, why  did  you  not  go  on  and  quote  the  next  sentence  in  the  same 
paragraph  of  Mr.  Budenz's  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  have  no  objection  whatever  to  the 
next  sentence  being  included  in  the  record. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  was  not  the  question.  The  question  was 
why  you  did  not  put  it  in,  not  whether  you  have  an  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  I  thought  that  the  point  that  Budenz 
admitted  that  he  had  never  seen  any  vestige  of  Communist  Party 
membership  on  my  part  was  the  pertinent  point  I  was  trying  to  make. 
I  had  been  trying  to  write  a  statement  not  longer  than  absolutely 
necessary. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  it  was  modified  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  other  statement — there  are  other  statements 
that  appear  at  other  points  in  the  Ty dings  transcript,  and  it  is  part  of 
the  hearsay  part  of  Mr.  Budenz's  evidence. 

For  instance,  on  page  1137  of  the  Tydings-typed  transcript,  Budenz 
says : 

Outside  of  what  I  was  officially  told  by  the  Communist  leaders,  I  do  not  know 
of  Mr.  Lattimore  as  a  Communist. 

I  did  not  quote  that  either. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2971 

Senator  Ferguson".  Do  you  not  think  that  the  statement  you  gave 
was  modified  by  the  next  sentence  ? 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  ISIodified  by  the  next  sentence  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  the  one  that  was  read. 

Mr.  Lattumoee.  They  are  two  separate  sentences. 

Mr.  SouRw^iNE.  Did  you  ever  inveigh  against  anyone  for  quoting 
things  out  of  context,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  this  committee  has  introduced  a 
great  many  quotations  out  of  context ;  yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  ever  inveigh  against  anyone  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  did  not  answer  the  question  at  all,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  that  I  would  use  the  word  "inveigh." 
I  have  pointed  out  that  people  have  used  statements  out  of  context. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Have  you  ever  expressed  your  disapproval  of  using 
statements  out  of  context? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  expressed  my  disapproval  of  using  state- 
ments out  of  context.  I  do  not  think  that  this  particular  point,  if 
that  is  what  you  are  referring  to,  is  the  point  out  of  context. 

]Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  what  I  was  going  to  ask  you,  whether  you 
think  you  have  quoted  this  thing  out  of  context  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  think  I  have  given  a  fair  connotation  of  Mr. 
Budenz's  testimony  over  all. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  On  paae  6  you  referred  to  an  article  by  a  Chinese 
Communist  published  in  I'acific  Affairs,  which  you  say  was  the  single 
exception  to  a  rule. 

Are  you  there  referring  to  the  article  Agrarian  Democracy  in 
Northwest  China,  by  Ma  Ning,  do  you  recall  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  is  probably  the  reference.  Inciden- 
tally, I  don't  mean — you  use  the  word  '"rule"  there.  I  don't  mean  rule 
in  the  sense  that  the  magazine  had  any  rule  against  presenting  the 
views  of  Chinese  Communists.  I  mean,  as  it  so  happens,  that  is  the 
only  one  we  had  that  I  have  been  able  to  find. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  At  the  top  of  page  7,  sir,  you  say : 

Now,  it  is  characteristic  of  tliis  man  and  of  this  dark  world  of  intrigue,  that 
your  counsel,  Mr.  Morris,  carefully  refrained  in  the  hearings  before  you  from 
asking  Budenz  whether  he  had  read  my  writings. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine,  Do  you  realize,  sir,  that  the  plain  meaning  of  that 
language  is  a  charge  that  something  which  Mr.  Morris  did  is  charac- 
teristic of  Mr,  Budenz  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Is  that  your  interpretation  of  it? 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  I  am  asking  you  if  you  realize  that  that  is  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  language. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  language 
is  that  Mr.  Morris,  with  eveiy  opportunity  to  straighten  out  the 
Budenz  record,  did  not  do  so. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  deny  that  the  plain  meaning  of  that  lan- 
guage is  the  statement  that  something  Mr.  Morris  did  is  characteristic 
of  Mr.  Budenz? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  stating  that  it  is  characteristic  of  this  man, 
in  this  dark  world  of  intrigue.  I  mean,  the  whole  way  in  which 
Budenz  has  been  allowed  to  make  his  accusations,  broadcast,  with  no 
checking  or  verifying  of  his  credibility,  no  testing  questions  whatever. 


2972  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  are  talking  about  something  Mr.  Morris  did; 
are  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  go  on  to 

Mr.  SouKwiNE.  No,  not  going  on,  sir.  In  this  particular  sentence 
you  are  talking  about  something  Mr.  Morris  did. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  it  is  characteristic  of  this  procedure, 

Mr,  SouRwiisrE.  You  are  talking  about  something  Mr.  Morris  did; 
are  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  Mr.  Morris  carefully  refrained  in  the  hear- 
ings  

Mr,  SouRwiNE,  And  you  are  stating  that  what  Mr.  Morris  did  in 
that  regard  is  characteristic  of  Mr.  Budenz;  are  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  you  would  like  to  interpret  it  that  way. 

Mr.  SoTiRWiNE.  Do  you  deny  that  you  intended  it  that  way  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  All  right,  if  you  want  to  put  that  word  in  my 
mouth,  I  will  intend  it  that  way, 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Please  do  not  intend  it  that  way  for  me,  sir.  I 
am  asking  you  what  you  did  intend.  I  think  it  is  germane  to  this 
committee  to  know  whether  the  plain  import  of  wdiat  you  said  is 
something  which  you  intended  to  say. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr,  Sourwine,  the  use  of  the  words  "this  dark 
world  of  intrigue"  is  in  itself  a  statement  on  my  part  that  there  are 
things  here  that  I  cannot  fathom,  that  I  think  that  the  proceedings 
would  have  been  much  fairer  and  clearer  if  there  had  not  been  this 
mystery  and  this  atmosphere  of  intrigue.  Precisely  what  character- 
istics Mr.  Morris  and  Mr.  Budenz  shared  in  this  dark  world  of  in- 
trigue is  something  that  I  don't  know.  If  I  had  known,  1  would 
have  said  it. 

Senator  Ferguson,  What  do  you  mean  by  "intrigue"  here,  as  used? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mean  this  manner  of  presenting  evidence  when 
it  had  been  clearly  shown  in  the  Tydings  hearings  that  Budenz  was 
unreliable  and  evasive,  to  present  him  all  over  again  before  this  sub- 
committee without  a  single  question  to  check  his  credibility. 

Now,  I  am  not  saying,  Senator,  that  my  view  of  Budenz  is  necessarily 
correct.  I  am  not  saying  that  the  evidence  in  tile  Tydings  trans- 
script  is  all  the  evidence  there  would  be.  I  am  merely  saying  that 
I  think  that,  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  accusations  made  by  Budenz, 
some  check  should  have  been  made  before  this  committee.  And  did 
your  committee  ask  your  counsel  if  they  had  checked  Budenz'  cred- 
ibility? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  have  any  knowledge,  sir,  of  any  checks  that 
may  have  been  made? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  I  can  see  is  an  absence  of  any  check. 

Senatpr  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  Budenz  had  been  used  by  the 
Justice  Department  on  many  occasions  in  court  and  had  been  vouched 
for  as  to  credibility  by  the  Justice  Department  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  was  not  brought  up,  Senator,  in  the  Tydings 
hearings. 

Senator  Ferguson.  My  questi6n  was  did  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  is  something  pertinent  to  this  that  I  have  on 
the  record  before.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  like  to  return  to  that  later  ? 

Mr.  Fortas,  Mrs.  Lattimore  is  looking  for  it  now. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  say  Mrs.  Lattimore  is  looking  it  up  now  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2973 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  Yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  may  proceed.    We  will  return  to  it  later. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  ask  this  question,  Mr.  Lattimore  ?  With  re- 
gard to  this  sentence  we  are  discussing,  the  first  sentence  at  the  top 
of  page  7  of  your  statement,  now  that  we  haf  e  had  some  discussion 
of  it  here  and  now  that  you  have  reread  it,  is  there  anything  that  that 
sentence  appears  to  you  to  convey  that  you  want  to  disavow  here  or  in 
any  way  circumscrilDe  or  amend? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  considered  that  sentence  carefully 
before  I  wrote  it,  and  I  will  stay  with  it  as  it  stands. 

Mr.  SouR^VINE.  I  am  sure  you  did.  Now  at  the  end  of  that  first 
paragraph  at  the  top  of  page  7  you  say : 

Mr.  Morris  and  Budenz  sought  to  achieve  just  as  good  a  general  effect. 

By  that  statement  do  you  mean  that  Mr.  Morris  and  Mr.  Budenz 
had  a  common  purpose? 

JNIr.  Lattlmore.  I  mean  that  the  record  as  it  stands  certainly  looks 
like  that. 

Mr.  SouRA\T:]srE.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Morris  and  Mr.  Budenz  had  a 
common  purpose;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  In  my  opinion,  Mr.  Morris  brought  on  Mr.  Budenz 
and  asked  him  questions  which,  as  I  stated  just  above,  enabled  Budenz 
to  avoid  the  choice  of  plain,  not  fancy,  perjuring  on  confessing  that  he 
had  no  basis  for  his  charges.  At  this  moment.  Senator,  I  have  found 
the  point  which  I  was  looking  for. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  in  a  statement  made  by  me  before  the  Tyd- 
ings  committee.  I  don't  have  the  page  reference  to  the  printed 
hearings : 

Third,  I  am  informed  that  the  Department — 

that  is,  the  Department  of  Justice — 

does  not  vouch  for  the  general  character  or  credibility  of  its  witnesses.  At  most, 
it  impliedly  represents  that  the  use  that  they  are  qualified  to  testify  on  matters 
upon  which  they  are  questioned ;  for  example,  in  appropriate  cases  it  calls  as 
Government  witnesses  narcotic  peddlers,  gangsters,  racketeers,  confessed  mur- 
derers, and  thugs.  « 

Senator  Ferguson.  Does  it  not  vouch  for  the  fact  that  when  they 
call  a  witness  such  as  they  used  Budenz  for  in  these  cases,  they  at  least 
believe  what  he  is  going  to  say  to  be  true  and  not  perjury  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Presumably  on  the  point  for  which  they  are  call- 
ing him.  But  Budenz  was  not  called  by  the  Department  of  Justice 
to  testify  against  me. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No  ;  I  am  not  talking  about  you  now.  I  tried 
to  eliminate  you  as  much  as  possible  out  of  the  case. 

But  if  they  call  him  in  one  of  these  other  cases,  they  vouch  for  the 
credibility  of  what  he  is  going  to  say  in  that  case ;  do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Presumably. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes.     You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Thank  you,  sir.  If  we  can  get  back  to  the  question 
of  your  statement  that  Mr.  Morris  and  Budenz  sought  to  achieve  just 
as  good  a  general  effect,  did  you  intend  by  that  to  imply  any  prear- 
rangement  between  Mr.  Morris  and  Mr.  Budenz  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  knowledge  how  much  they  may  have 
prearranged   things  between  them.     I  wrote  that  sentence  simply 

88348— 52— pt.  9 6 


2974  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

because  it  looked  to  me  as  if  botli  Morris  and  Budenz  had  skirted 
around  difficulties  known  to  both  of  them  from  the  previous  hearings 
before  the  Tydings  committee. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  But  to  put  it  bluntly,  were  you  not  then,  and  are  you 
not  now,  charging  conspiracy  between  Mr.  Budenz  and  Mr.  Morris  to 
achieve  what  you  call  just  as  good  a  general  effect? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  counsel  tells  me  that  he  believes  that  that  is  a 
question  of  legal  opinion  on  which  I  don't  have  to  express  myself. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Is  tliere  anything  in  that  statement,  that  sentence 
that  I  read,  which  you  now  want  to  disavow  or  amend  or  circumscribe 
in  any  way? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  at  all. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  say  the  innuendo  is  there,  that  you 
are  charging  Morris  and  Budenz  in  a  conspiracy  to  bring  about 
perjury? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  said  above  that  this  whole  thing  appears 
to  me  to  be  a  dark  world  of  intrigue.  The  point  has  just  been  brought 
up  that  the  definition  of  conspiracy  is  a  legal  question.  I  don't  know 
about  conspiracy,  collusion,  anything  of  that  kind.  I  have  simply 
made  the  point  that  the  record  shows  that  both  men  skirted  around 
points  of  difficulty  well  known  to  both  of  them. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Let  us  leave  the  word  "conspiracy"  out  and  use 
the  word  that  they  just  combined  to  have  perjury  committed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  have  what? 

Senator  Ferguson,  To  have  perjury  committed  in  the  proceedings. 
Is  that  not  what  you  say  ? 

If  he  had,  Budenz  would  have  had  the  choice  of  plain,  not  fancy,  perjury  or 
confessing  that  he  had  no  basis  for  his  charge.  Instead,  Mr.  Morris  and  Budenz 
sought  to  achieve  just  as  good  a  general  effect. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  What  I  was  pointing  out  was  that  the  line  of  ques- 
tioning followed  was  one  which  permitted  Budenz  to  evade  the  whole 
question  of  perjury. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  say  Mr.  Morris  obligingly 
asked.     Who  was  he  obliging,  in  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  Mr.  Sourwine,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  no 
questions  were  asked  that  would  cause  Budenz  the  slightest  difficulty, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  Budenz  was  enabled  to  go  further  and  be  even 
more  outrageous  in  his  accusations  than  he  was  before  the  Tydings 
committee,  obliging — that  is,  obliging  Mr.  Budenz — is  the  only  term 
1  can  think  of. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  find  out,  how  you  intended 
It.  And  when  you  say  a  little  further  on,  "Budenz  obligingly  re- 
plied," who  did  you  intent  to  say  Mr.  Budenz  was  obliging? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  Mr.  Budenz  was  obliging 
Mr.  Morris  personally  or  obliging  the  committee.  But  he  was  appar- 
ently giving  an  answer  that  he  thought  would  be  well  received. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  the  next  paragraph  jou  refer  to  a  conference 
with  the  editor  of  Collier's  magazine. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  whether  that  conference  was  face  to 
face  or  over  the  telephone  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  recollection  of  the  discussion  before  the  Tyd- 
ings committee  is  that  it  must  have  been  face  to  face,  and  with  a 
stenographer  present. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2975 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  think  the  Tydings  committee  record  shows 
that? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  That  is  my  recollection.  I  would  be  glad  to  have 
it  verified. 

Mr.  SoTJR^viNE.  We  would  be  glad  to  have  you  verify  it,  sir,  if  you 
can  find  anything  in  the  Tydings  record  that  indicates  that. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  May  the  witness  take  a  look  at  it  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  No. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  have  found  it  here. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  before  me,  sir,  the  page  of  the  printed  record 
which  confirms  that.  I  wanted  to  question  you  about  it.  I  will  be 
glad  to  wait,  if  you  finish. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  perhaps  we  could  save  time.  We  have  had 
a  4-  or  5-minute  pause  liere.  If  you  would  look  at  this  page  which  I 
hand  you,  which  is,  I  believe,  the  printed  record  of  that  transcript,  it 
might  save  time.     I  simply  want  to  ask  you  a  question  about  it. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Do  you  want  to  skip  this  point  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  It  is  a  relatively  immaterial  point,  sir.  It  is  our 
worth  holding  up  the  proceedings  over.  I  simply  wanted  to  ask  about 
the  nature  of  this  conversation. 

Was  not  this  the  case  of  the  editor  of  Collier's,  or  one  of  the  editors, 
or  editorial  board  members  of  Collier's,  talking  with  Mr.  Budenz 
about  an  article  he  had  written  for  Collier's  and  a  draft  of  which 
was  then  in  the  possession  of  Collier's  and  in  the  possession  of  this 
editor  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  So  I  gather  from  the  transcript,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  was  not  the  editor  of  Collier's  asking  Mr. 
Budenz  about  what  he  said  in  that  article  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Was  he  not  saying  "You  say  this  here,  now  how 
about  that?     You  do  not  say  this  here."     Is  that  not  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  sort  of  conference  it  was. 

Mr.  SouR^^^NE.  He  was  not  asking  Mr.  Budenz  "Wliat  do  you,  Mr. 
Budenz,  say  to  me  now  about  the  question  of  whether  anyone  is  or  is 
not  a  Communist?"  He  was  asking  Mr.  Budenz  "Do  you,  in  this 
article,  say  anything  about  Mr.  Lattimore?" 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  he  was  apparently — my  name  was  brought  in 
there,  and  the  editor  suggested  this — that  the  way  Budenz  had  put  it 
made  it  look  as  though  I  had  been  a  Communist  agent,  and  Budenz 
backed  off  and  said  he  was  not  stating  that  I  acted  as  a  Communist 
agent  in  any  way. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  your  interpretation  of  what  took  place;  is 
that  right? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  my  answer  to  your  question. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  All  right. 

That  is  quite  correct,  Mr.  Fortas,  that  is  what  I  asked  him  for. 

I  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  material  in  small  type,  which  appears 
on  page  512  of  the  State  Department  employee  loyalty  hearings,  the 
Tydings  hearings,  may  be  inserted  in  the  record  of  this  committee  at 
this  point.  That  is  what  I  asked  Mr.  Lattimore  to  read  and  what  we 
were  discussing. 

Senator  O'CoNOR  (presiding).  It  will  be  so  inserted. 
(The  material  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  464"  and  is  as 
follows:) 


2976  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Exhibit  No.  464 

State  Department  Employee  Loyalty  Investigation  Heakings  Befoke  a 
Subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  United  States 
Senate,  Eighty-first  Congress 

[Pt.  1,  p.  512] 

Question.  You  tell  about  Browder  saying  that  the  followers  of  Mao  Tse  Tung 
had  to  be  presented  in  a  new  light.  It's  easy  to  see  that  this  was  an  idea  the 
Communists  had  to  push.  Don't  show  that  they  invented  this  idea,  show  that  they 
fostered  it. 

Answer.  I'll  do  that. 

Question.  You  have  done  one  thing  here  that  I  think  is  not  good.  By  inference 
you  implied  that  Joe  Barnes  and  Lattimore  are  not  Communists  exactly  but  are 
fellow  travelers.     You  say  the  Communists  supposedly  endorsed  Roosevelt. 

Answer.  I  think  probably  what  we  ought  to  do  is  to  leave  out  those  names 
entirely.  Perhaps  we  can  rephrase  it  some  way.  I  said  it  merely  to  show  that 
they  would  add  meat  to  what  I  was  saying. 

Question.  From  our  standpoint  it  seems  that  you  were  damning  these  people. 
This  might  put  us  in  an  embarrassing  legalistic  position.  We  have  no  particular 
reason  to  smear  Lattimore.  The  same  thing  applies  to  that  thing  about  Roosevelt 
on  page  5.     Why  did  you  use  the  word  "supposedly"? 

Answer.  It  was  only  because  from  time  to  time  they  were  supporting  Browder 
inferentially.  They  didn't  come  out  and  say  they  were  for  Roosevelt.  Their 
arguments  were  for  Roosevelt  but  their  candidate  was  Browder.  The  Communist 
support  of  Roosevelt  was  not  an  actual  support  but  only  a  way  of  winning  the 
people  over  that  were  undecided. 

Question.  On  page  7  you  say  ''This  idea  of  the  'upstanding  Chinese  Communists, 
the  great  agrarian  reformers,'  was  peddled  everywhere  from  that  time  on."  You 
haven't  given  a  single  instance  that  it  was  peddled  or  that  the  idea  was  planted 
by  the  Communists.     Give  at  least  one  instance,  or  more  than  one  if  possible. 

Answer.  Lattimore  and  Barnes  became  champions  of  some  of  these  ideas  as 
time  went  on. 

Question.  You're  not  saying  that  they  acted  as  Communist  agents  in  any  way? 

Answer.  No. 

Question.  That  ought  to  be  quite  clear. 

Answer.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  May  I  make  the  point  that  the  hearings  before  the 
Tydings  committee  inchided  the  entire  transcript  of  this  conference 
between  the  editor  of  Collier's  and  Mr,  Biidenz.  I  point  that  out 
to  you.  I  do  not  know  what  this  segment  is  to  be  introduced,  but 
the  committee  may  want  to  consider  whether  you  want  the  entire 
transcript. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Is  counsel  suggesting  that  an  effort  is  being  made 
here  to  take  something  out  of  context  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Of  course  not,  Mr.  Sourwine.  I  haven't  seen  what 
you  are  offering.  Customarily,  when  evidence  is  offered  in  any  pro- 
ceeding that  I  know  of,  it  is  shown  to  opposing  counsel  in  advance. 
I  am  not  asking  you  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  This  is  material  with  which  it  was  assumed  counsel 
was  thoroughly  familiar,  having  participated  in  the  Tydings  hearings. 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  have  never  seen  the  printed  transcript,  and  neither 
has  Mr.  Lattimore.     I  don't  know  what  the  pages  are. 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  may  proceed  to  the  next  question. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  risk  of  cluttering  this  record, 
there  are  only  a  little  over  two  pages  of  the  entire  transcript  that  is 
referred  to,  and  they  appear  beginning  on  page  513.  May  those  pages 
now  be  inserted  at  this  point  in  the  record  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right;  they  will  be  inserted. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2977 

Mr.  SoTTRWiNE.  And  leaving  the  previous  excerpt  which  was  in- 
serted in  the  record  at  that  point  so  that  anyone  may  compare  to  see 
if  they  were  taken  out  of  context. 

Senator  O'Conor.  It  will  be  so  included. 

(The  material  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  465"  and  is  as 

follows:) 

Exhibit  No.  465 

Statk  Department  Employee  Loyalty  Investigation  Hearings  Before  a 
subcomillttee  of  the  committee  on  foreign  relations,  united  states 
Senate,  Eighty-First  Congress 

[Pt.  1,  pp.  512-516] 

budenz  article  red  myths,  starring  china 
(By  Mr.  Leonard  Paris) 

Question.  The  main  problem,  IMr.  Budenz,  was  that  we  felt  that  your  thesis  of 
this  piece  wasn't  entirely  proved.  Let  me  tell  you  what  I  think  of  it :  We  need 
more  documentation  on  some  of  the  things.  On  the  second  page  you  say  the 
whole  idea  of  coalition  government  was  concocted  by  Soviet  Russia  in  order 
to  defeat  America  in  the  Far  East.  I  don't  doubt  that  their  support  of  coali- 
tion government  was  a  contributing  factor,  but  who  first  suggested  coalition 
government? 

Answer.  The  Communists. 

Question.  Before  it  had  been  publicly  mentioned  anywhere  else? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question.  I  think  you  ought  to  mention  when  and  where  and  by  whom 
coalition  government  came  to  public  attention. 

Answer.  It  was  the  Communists  who  pushed  it  and  made  use  of  it.  I  will  get 
the  authority  for  this. 

Question.  On  page  3,  the  sentence  reading:  "These  Moscow  agents,  pledged 
by  their  own  declaration,"  etc.,  you  quote  "a  sort  of  nonpartisan  leaguer." 
Where  does  this  come  from? 

Answer.  This  comes  from  Browder.  That  is  to  say  I  don't  know  of  anyone 
who  used  that  phrase.  It  was  used  for  an  argument  that  the  Communists  in 
China  are  different.  However,  I  will  get  authority  for  that  statement.  I  used 
it  because  it  was  pushed  by  the  Communist  Party. 

Question.  Here  is  an  example  of  the  sort  of  thing  that  needs  more  incidents 
and  instances.  On  page  4  the  sentence  which  reads  "At  every  turn  of  history, 
the  Chinese  Communists,  etc."  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  all  readers  if  you 
gave  some  examples  of  that,  other  than  just  the  pact  between  Russia  and  China. 
You're  talking  about  the  Soviet  nonaggression  pact.  We  need  more  examples  to 
support  that. 

Answer.  I'll  get  you  that. 

Question.  You  tell  about  Browder  saying  that  the  followers  of  Mao  Tse-tung 
had  to  be  presented  in  a  new  light.  It's  easy  to  see  that  this  was  an  idea  the 
Communists  had  to  push.  Don't  show  that  they  invented  this  idea,  show  that 
they  fostered  it. 

Answer.  I'll  do  that. 

Question.  You  have  done  one  thing  here  that  I  think  is  not  good.  By  inference 
you  implied  that  Joe  Barnes  and  Lattimore  are  not  Communists  exactly,  but  are 
fellow  travelers.     You  say  that  Communists  supposedly  endorsed  Roosevelt? 

Answer.  I  think  probably  what  we  ought  to  do  is  to  leave  out  those  names 
entirely.  Perhaps  we  can  rephrase  it  some  way.  I  said  it  merely  to  show  that 
they  would  add  meat  to  what  I  was  saying. 

Question.  From  our  standpoint  it  seems  that  you  were  damning  these  people. 
This  might  put  us  in  an  embarrassing  legalistic  position.  We  have  no  particular 
reason  to  smear  Lattimore.  The  same  thing  applies  to  that  thing  about  Roose- 
velt on  page  .5.    Why  did  you  use  the  word  "supposedly"? 

Answer.  It  was  only  because  from  time  to  time  they  were  supporting  Browder 
inferentially.  They  didn't  come  out  and  say  they  were  for  Roosevelt.  Their 
arguments  were  for  Roosevelt  but  tlieir  candidate  was  Browder.  The  Com- 
munist support  of  Roosevelt  was  not  an  actual  support  but  only  a  way  of  winning 
the  people  over  that  were  undecided. 


2978  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Question.  On  page  7  you  say  "This  idea  of  the  'upstanding  Chinese  Com- 
munists, the  great  agrarian  reformers,'  was  peddled  everywhere  from  that  time 
on."  You  haven't  given  a  single  instance  that  it  was  peddled  or  that  the  idea 
was  planted  by  the  Communists.  Give  at  least  one  instance,  or  more  than  one 
if  possible. 

Answer.  Lattimore  and  Barnes  became  champions  of  some  of  these  ideas  as 
time  went  on. 

Question.  You're  not  saying  that  they  acted  as  Communist  agents  in  any  way? 

Answer.  No. 

Question.  That  ought  to  be  quite  clear. 

Answer.  Oh,  yes. 

Question.  You  say  that  the  entire  history  of  coalition  governments  was  that 
Russia  took  over  eventually.  We  need  concrete  instances,  and  examples  very 
much  more  effective.  They  must  also  be  complete  enough  so  that  they  can  be 
quickly  identified  and  so  that  the  reader  can  see  that  they  are  true. 

Answer.  It  will  be  very  brief. 

Question.  On  page  10,  "On  December  7  last,  it  was  discovered  in  Washington 
that  there  had  been  a  tragic  lag  in  the  delivery  of  promised  war  material  and 
other  goods  to  Nationalist  China,  etc."  Isn't  the  reason  for  that  simply  because 
Congress  didn't  appi'opriate  more  than  that?  Isn't  it  true  that  more  aid  went 
to  Greece  and  Turkey  than  China  simply  because  more  had  been  appropriated? 

Answer.  I  have  to  check  on  that.  This  was  pointed  to  by  the  New  York 
Times  in  an  editorial. 

Question.  On  page  11  thei'e  is  a  dubious  slam  on  the  unions.  "A  special  se- 
cret order  was  sent  out  to  the  Communists,  to  be  pushed  in  unions  and  in  every 
occupation  where  sympathizers  were  engaged,  etc."  It  sounds  as  though  you 
can  expect  to  find  Communist  sympathizers  in  every  union. 

Answer.  We  can  change  that.  It's  a  document  that  I'm  referring  to  there. 
I  will  look  it  up.  It  may  be  the  way  it  is  phrased.  The  unions  are  the  chief 
opponents  of  the  Communists.  Communists  are  always  trying  to  work  within 
the  unions.  In  a  number  of  unions  they  do  have  Communists  as  they  do  in  all 
fields. 

Question.  "Arrangements  were  made  whereby  the  legs  of  book  reviewers  were 
to  be  pulled  so  that  those  works  which  gave  a  break  to  the  Chinese  Communists 
would  receive  favorable  notices."  etc.  We  need  an  instance  of  this.  Make  the 
article  much  more  effective  by  getting  an  actual  case. 

Answer.  In  previous  articles  my  statements  were  specific ;  then  they  were 
made  very  general. 

Question.  Any  documentation? 

Answer.  No.    I  can't  prove  it  legally.    That's  why  I  use  a  general  phraseology. 

Question.  Best  thing  to  do  is  leave  it  out. 

Answer.  The  trouble  is  I  did  have  a  host  of  specific  examples  and  then  had 
to  take  them  out. 

Question.  On  the  Amerasia  case,  refresh  most  of  our  readers  as  to  what  actu- 
ally happened.  Did  the  defendants  get  off  without  any  difficulties?  How  did 
it  work  out? 

Answer.  Jaffe  was  fined  and  one  other  defendant,  Larson  (I  have  to  check 
up  on  this)  got  a  small  suspended  sentence.  Nobody  went  to  jail.  Mitchell 
was  not  given  punishment  of  any  kind. 

Question.  Can  you  indicate  how  Communist  pressure  was  exerted? 

Answer.  I'll  make  an  effort  to  check  this.  This  is  pretty  well  known.  That's 
why  I  didn't  go  into  it. 

Question.  But  people  forget  details.  The  actual  outcome  of  the  case  should 
be  stated  and  the  definite  part  that  the  Communists  played. 

Answer.  Definitely.  I  should  tell  more  of  what  these  documents  contain. 
The  plans  of  Chiang  Kai-shek's  army  and  the  economic  plans  of  the  Chinese 
Government  were  in  tho.se  papers. 

Question.  On  bottom  of  page  16,  "In  his  address  Mr.  John  Carter  Vincent  indi- 
cated Nationalist  China  as  a  place  unsound  to  invest  private  or  public  capital." 
You're  not  trying  to  imply  that  this  was  a  Communist  idea,  are  you  ?  Hasn't  it 
been  pretty  well  demonstrated  that  Nationalist  China  was  unsound? 

Answer.  The  State  Department  was  supporting  Nationalist  China. 

Question.  The  point  is,  Mr.  Vincent's  quotes  on  Nationalist  China  may  or  may 
not  have  been  the  result  of  the  Communist  lie. 

Answer.  I'll  have  to  link  it  more  closely.  It  was  accepted  in  the  Far  East 
division.    I'll  bring  you  more  information  on  this. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2979 

Question.  If  Mr.  Carter's  advice  were  taken,  you  claim  there  would  be  an  awful 
fiasco.  Isn't  there  any  possibility  that  part  of  the  trouble  in  China  is  the  Chinese 
Government  itself? 

Answer.  Surely. 

Question.  Never  in  any  part  of  the  article  was  it  admitted  that  Chiang  Kai- 
shek's  government  was  weak  and  corrupt.  You're  trying  to  show  the  Commu- 
nist influence. 

Answer.  Let  me  take  hold  of  that.  I'll  present  more  examples  of  Communist 
activity  and  show  how  the  activity  played  its  part. 

Question.  Vie  shouldn't  try  to  convince  our  readers  that  Chiang  Kai-shek  was 
all  white  and  that  Communist  propaganda  led  to  what  happened  over  there. 

Answer.  As  a  matter  of  self-defense,  America  was  completely  unaware  of  what 
was  taking  place  in  China. 

Question.  You  have  to  prove  that  General  Carlson  was  a  party  liner — back 

it  up. 

Answer.  He  was  such  a  striking  example.  He  was  a  Communist  many  years. 
I  can  be  stronger.  I  can  give  you  instances.  I  can  show  you  who  was  associated 
with  him  on  this  committee. 

Question.  On  page  21:  "It  was  out  of  all  these  pressures,  Moscow-directed, 
that  President  Roosevelt  was  persuaded  to  amend  our  solemn  pledge  of  China's 
integrity  made  at  Cairo  to  the  Yalta  promise  that  Soviet  Russia  would  get  Outer 
Mongolia  and  even  a  chance  at  Manchuria,  et  cetera."  Moscow-directed  pres- 
sures were  not  solely  responsible ;  that  is  putting  it  a  little  too  broadly. 

Answer.  It  shouldn't  be  solely. 

Question.  "It  is  from  such  creation  of  confusion  in  the  American  mind  that 
we  have  promised  aid  to  China  and  not  given  it  in  the  measure  it  was  pledged." 
You  were  referring  to  the  New  York  Times  editorial,  I  presume.  Show  actual 
figures. 

Answer.  I'm  glad  you  raised  this  about  Roosevelt.  I  can  tell  more  in  this 
piece.  The  reason  I  don't  go  more  into  the  Communist  activities  is  because 
I  don't  want  to  sound  repetitious  of  some  of  the  other  articles.  The  methods  used 
by  the  Communists  have  a  somewhat  similar  tone.  The  tactics  described  sound 
like  it  happened  before. 

Question.  On  these  things,  the  more  instances  you  can  show  to  bear  out  what 
you  say  or  what  your  thesis  is,  the  better  it  will  be.  It  has  to  be  more  than  just 
implied  or  inferred.  Make  it  as  definite  as  you  can  possibly  make  it  without  get- 
ting into  libel. 

Answer.  There  is  a  terrific  .iob  in  writing  this.  I  know  certain  connecting 
links  which  I  dare  not  say.  I  try  to  bring  them  out,  but  they  become  somewhat 
broken,  because  I  cannot  give  the  link.  I  will  make  some  of  these  definite  changes 
that  you  suggest.    I  will  enlarge  the  information  on  the  Chiang  phraseology. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  At  the  top  of  page  8,  sir,  and  this  is  the  last  point  I 
wish  to  inquire  about  before  you  go  ahead  with  the  reading  of  your 
statement,  you  say : 

This  same  Mr.  Morris  is  the  one  who  invited  Budenz  to  testify  that  I  received 
instructions  as  a  member  of  a  Communist  cell. 

I  would  like  to  ask  you  how  did  the  question  that  Mr.  Morris  asked 
at  that  point  invite  any  particular  testimony  from  Mr.  Budenz? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  that  second  sentence  was  written 
after  careful  consideration,  and  after  reading  the  part  of  the  tran- 
script in  which  Mr.  Morris  was  questioning  Budenz. 

Incidentally,  the  smooth  way  in  which  Budenz  was  allowed  to  pre- 
sent his  accusations  forms  rather  a  startling  contrast  with  the  ques- 
tioning of  accused  witnesses  before  this  committee. 

The  only  conclusion  I  could  come  to  from  that  reading  was  that  the 
entire  method  of  Mr.  Morris'  questioning  constituted  an  open 
invitation. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  see.  You  were  not  referring  to  the  particular 
question  that  you  have  here  cited  in  your  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  referring  to  the  whole  of  the  questioning. 


2980  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRA\^NE.  All  right.  I  have  no  more  questions  up  to  this  point 
where  the  witness  concluded  reading  his  statement. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Will  you  proceed?  Again,  just  by  way  of  expe- 
diting the  proceeding,  it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  natural  break 
at  the  end  of  page  14,  before  taking  up  the  several  points  that  the 
witness  indicates  were  used  in  a  certain  matter.  It  occurs  to  me  that, 
from  this  point  on,  until  the  conclusion  of  page  14,  which  may  be  a 
natural  segment  or  just  a  segment,  that  you  miglit  want  to  proceed  and 
read  it  entirely.  ^ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  entirely  with  you.  Senator. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right,  go  ahead.  You  may  proceed  from  the 
middle  of  page  8. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  for  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations,  your  chair- 
man has  already  publicly  proclaimed  that  lie  has  prejudged  it,  and 
I  do  not  suppose  that  anything  I  say  will  change  his  mind.  In  a 
printed  interview,  while  the  investigation  is  still  in  process,  he  has 
already  stated,  as  his  "curbstone  opinion,"  that  the  institute  "was  taken 
over  by  Communist  design  and  made  a  vehicle  for  attempted  control 
and  conditioning  of  American  thinking  and  American  policy  with 
regard  to  the  Far  East."  It  was  also  used — he  said — "for  espionage 
purposes  to  collect  and  channel  information  of  interest  or  value  to 
the  Russian  Communists"  (United  States  News  and  World  Report, 
November  16,  1951 ) .  It  sounds  almost  as  if  the  curbstone  from  which 
the  distinguished  Senator  delivered  this  opinion  had  been  imported 
from  one  of  the  countries  in  which  accusation  is  accepted  as  conclusive 
of  guilt.  My  own  relations  with  the  IPR  were  gone  into  quite  thor- 
oughly before  the  Tydings  subcommittee,  the  record  of  which  your 
counsel,  Mr.  Morris,  has  so  sedulously  kept  out  of  sight.  I  therefore 
ask  permission  to  submit  as  an  exhibit  a  copy  of  my  statement  of  May 
2,  1950,  to  the  Tydings  committee,  and  I  particularly  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  analysis,  beginning  page  Dl,  showing  that  my  writings 
have  not  followed  the  Communist  line,  have  conflicted  with  the  Com- 
munist line,  and  have  been  bitterly  attacked  by  Communists. 

May  I  offer  that,  Senator  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Yes ;  that  will  be  received  and  marked  for  ref- 
erence. 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Thanlc  you. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  466,"  and  is 
filed  in  the  committee  file  for  reference. ) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  proceedings  before  this  subcommittee  have 
created  so  much  confusion  and  mystification  about  the  IPR  that  I 
want  to  repeat,  in  plain  English,  that  I  never  had  any  administrative 
responsibility  in  the  American  IPR,  or  any  supervision  of  its  staff. 
I  have  been  for  some  years  a  trustee,  and  for  a  short  time  after  the 
war  I  was  a  member  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  American  IPR ; 
but  as  I  do  not  live  in  New  York,  my  attendance  at  meetings  was 
infrequent.  I  also  want  to  say  clearly  that  in  my  own  work  as  editor 
of  Pacific  Affairs  from  1934  to  1941  I  was  not  dominated  or  directed 
or  influenced  in  any  way  by  Communist  or  pro-Communist  people  or 
attitudes.  Pacific  Affairs  was  not  an  American  publication.  It  was 
an  international  publication.  I  was  not  responsible  to  the  American 
IPR,  but  to  the  international  council. 

Articles  appearing  in  Pacific  Affairs  were  circulated  in  advance  to 
readers  in  a  number  of  countries.    Articles  dealing  with  current  con- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2981 

troversies  were  always  shown  in  advance  to  someone  representing  the 
other  side  of  the  controversy,  in  order  to  maintain  a  high  standard 
of  debate  and  discussion,  while  eliminating  mere  propaganda  as  far 
as  was  humanly  possible. 

I  call  your  attention  to  my  analysis  of  Pacific  Affairs  during  the 
years  I  edited  it  which  appears  on  pages  C-1  to  C-5  of  my  statement 
of  May  2,  to  the  Tydings  committee,  which  I  have  just  handed  to  you, 
and  from  which  I  wish  to  quote  a  few  paragraphs : 

May  I  remind  you  that  throughout  this  period  there  was  nothing  reprehensible 
or  even  unusual  about  the  occasional  publication  of  significant  left-wing  views 
or  the  analysis  of  left-wing  movements  in  far  eastern  countries"  Such  views 
and  analyses  appeared  in  all  the  leading  journals  of  the  United  States  and  the 
whole  "Western  World.  In  those  days,  before  Kohlberg,  McCarthy,  and  Budenz 
undertook  to  revise  the  American  tradition  of  free  inquiry  and  free  speech,  no- 
body dreamed  of  accusing  an  editor  or  publisher  of  being  a  Russian  spy  because 
such  views  were  printed. 

I  have  made  a  new  tabulation  for  you  of  all  material  published  in  Pacific 
Affairs  under  my  editorship.  Of  a  total  of  250  contributions,  only  17 — written 
by  11  persons — could  possibly  be  called,  by  anyone,  left  of  center  because  of  facts 
or  opinions  favorable  to  Russia,  Chinese  Communists,  guerrillas,  or  leftist  move- 
ments in  Asia.  Remember  this  was  an  international  magazine ;  94  articles  were 
definitely  right  of  center,  and  143  either  dealt  with  nonpolitical  and  noneconomic 
subjects  or  presented  purely  neutral  points  of  view.  There  was  nothing  even 
remotely  like  a  "mobilization"  of  Communist  or  leftist  writers. 

I  would  also  like  to  point  out  that  the  same  11  people  who  contributed  the 
17  articles  I  have  mentioned  as  representing  left-wing  positions  contributed, 
during  the  same  years,  a  total  of  at  least  204  articles  to  reputable  non-Commu- 
nist periodicals  including  the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  Reader's  Digest,  Literary 
Digest,  American  Mercury,  Fortune,  and  the  Atlantic  Monthly. 

And  in  the  same  period  we  published  at  least  94  contributions  that  were  defi- 
nitely to  the  right  of  center,  which  means  about  seven  times  as  much  right-wing 
material  as  there  was  material  presenting  left-wing  views  or  information. 
Among  our  right-wing  or  anti-Russian  contributors  were  Sir  Charles  Bell, 
British  authority  on  Tibet  and  Mongolia  ;  L.  H.  Hubbard,  a  Bank  of  England 
economist  specializing  on  Russia :  Prof.  Robert  J.  Kerner  of  the  University  of 
California ;  Nicholas  Roosevelt ;  Elizabeth  Boody  Schumpeter,  who  was  against 
a  tough  policy  toward  Japan;  Arnold  J.  Toynbee;  F.  W.  Eggleston,  later  Aus- 
tralian Minister  to  China  ;  G.  E.  Hubbard,  right-wing  British  authority  on  China ; 
William  Henry  Chamberlin,  and  a  strong  representation  of  Kuomintang  writers. 

I  expect  that  during  the  same  period,  hardly  any  serious  and  objective  magazine 
devoted  to  analysis  of  political  problems,  could  show  a  fairer  or  more  repre- 
sentative sample  of  current  thinking. 

By  promoting  the  publication  and  discussion  of  important  facts  and 
opinions  the  IPR,  in  my  opinion,  was  making  and  is  still  making  a 
valuable  contribution  to  our  shockingly  meager  information  about  the 
Far  East,  To  use  political  intimidation  to  curtail  or  eliminate  the 
free  market  of  facts  and  ideas  to  which  the  IPR  has  contributed  would 
be  a  catastrophe  to  the  best  interests  of  this  country. 

In  a  free  countr}',  the  discussion  of  foreign  policy  cannot  be  monop- 
olized or  patroled  by  the  government.  The  people  of  a  democracy, 
and  the  officials  who  handle  foreign  policy  in  the  government  need  to 
be  able  to  draw  upon  a  wide  field  of  academic  and  private  research, 
done  by  people  who  are  not  subject  to  bureaucratic  controls.  It  is* 
right  that  the  Congress  should  interest  itself  closely  in  both  the  issues 
and  the  conduct  of  foreign  policy,  but  it  is  not  right  that  the  Congress 
should  make  itself  the  censor  of  academic  research  and  personal 
opinion. 

Beginning  in  1938,  and  continuing  for  several  years,  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Relations  carried  out  a  special  project,  called  The  Inquiry, 
financed  by  a  grant  from  the  Rockefeller  Foundation.    Nothing  about 


2982  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

The  Inquiry  was  secret.  The  whole  background  of  war  and  political 
and  economic  conflict  in  the  Far  East  was  covered,  and  so  were  ques- 
tions of  future  peace  settlements.  More  than  30  books  were  published 
as  an  "inquiry  series."  These  books  went  straight  into  public  circula- 
tion. They  could  be  bought  and  read  by  anybody,  including  Govern- 
ment officials. 

Another  research  enterprise  was  carried  on  in  the  same  years  by  the 
Council  on  Foreign  Relations  in  New  York.  This  research  was  also 
financed  by  a  special  grant  from  a  private  foundation,  and  its  results 
were  submitted  to  the  State  Department. 

I  did  not  contribute  to  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  inquiry.  I 
did  contribute  to  the  Council  on  Foreign  Relations  researcli.  I  took 
part  in  more  than  one  of  the  "study  groups"  and  for  a  time  was  chair- 
man of  one  of  them.    I  wrote  memoranda  and  expressed  opinions. 

If  this  subcommittee  is  interested  in  my  views,  its  investigative  staff 
is  open  to  the  charge  of  extraordinary  incompetence  for  trying  to 
investigate  me  through  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations.  They  should 
have  looked  into  my  connections  with  the  Council  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions. 

In  fact,  I  think  that  several  memoranda  which  the  Council  on  For- 
eign Relations  asked  me  to  write  in  October  and  November,  1940,  were 
forwarded  by  the  Council  to  the  State  Department.  The  memoranda 
had  no  effect  whatever,  I'm  sorry  to  say.  In  them  I  predicted  that  the 
Japanese  would  find  it  eas}^  to  come  to  terms  with  the  Russians  and 
that  Russia  would  not  act  jointly  with  America.  Accordingly,  I  urged 
that  we  strengthen  our  position  by  increasing  aid  to  China,  and  I 
warned  that  "there  is  grave  danger  that  we  shall  get  into  a  war  with 
Japan,  with  Russia  joyfully  neutral  and  uncooperative." 

My  warnings  of  a  Russian- Japanese  get-together  were  justified 
when  they  signed  a  neutrality  pact  in  April  1941.  It  turned  out  that 
I  was  right  in  foreseeing  that  war  between  Russia  and  Germany  was 
more  likely  than  war  between  Russia  and  Japan,  in  expecting  Japan 
to  turn  south,  toward  Singapore,  and  not  north  toward  Russia,  and, 
finally,  in  warning  that  this  could  only  be  prevented  by  simultaneously 
boosting  military  supplies  to  China  and  cracking  down  on  economic 
supplies  to  Japan.  But  the  record  shows  that  between  the  time  of 
these  memoranda  and  Pearl  Harbor,  a  year  later,  these  views  of  mine 
had  not  the  faintest  effect  on  the  conduct  of  American  foreign  policy. 
We  continued  to  aid  the  Japanese  war  machine  and  to  hope  that  Japan 
would  be  kept  busy  with  Russia. 

In  the  good  days  of  freedom  v/hen  I  edited  Pacific  Affairs  for  the 
IPR,  no  one  was  being  bullied  for  having  an  inquiring  mind  or  inde- 
pendent opinions.  Every  magazine  and  scholar  was  eager  to  get  facts 
and  to  publish  or  read  diverse  opinions  on  the  issues  of  the  time.  In 
those  days  it  is  regrettably  true  that  nobody — and  I  mean  nobody — 
had  a  crystal  ball  so  that  he  could  see  into  the  future  with  unerring 
success.  The  nature  of  Communist  infiltration  was  not  known.  It 
never  entered  our  heads  to  set  up  a  private  FBI  or  security  screening 
to  determine  the  exact  political  affiliation  of  IPR  staff  members  or 
contributors  to  IPR  publications.  It  didn't  enter  anybody  else's  head, 
either.  The  Saturday  Evening  Post,  the  Luce  publications,  and  the 
Wall  Street  Journal  didn't  work  that  way,  either. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2983 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  had  the  best  protection  against  being  man- 
ipulated or  duped  that  a  private  organization  could  possibly  have — 
complete  openness  of  discussion  of  facts  and  ideas. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  I  ask  a  question  there?  Did  I  under- 
stand you  to  say  back  further  that  you  had  really  nothing  to  do  with 
the  policy  or  the  setting  up  of  what  you  say  now  is  protection  ?  And 
where  did  you  get  this  information  about  the  best  protection  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  not  say  anything  about  setting  up  anything. 
I  merely  said  that  we  did  not  set  up,  and  that  nobody  knows 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  you  say  back  here  further  that  you  did 
not  have  anything  to  do  with  the  policy  of  the  IPR. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  1  said  I  never  had  any  administrative  responsibil- 
ities in  the  American  IPR,  that  is  quite  true. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Where  did  you  get  the  information,  then,  about 
"We  have  the  best  protection." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  I  participated  in  it.  Senator;  because  I 
knew  that  as  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs  my  articles,  the  articles  I  pub- 
lished, were  circulated  all  over  the  place  before  they  were  published, 
and  the  manuscripts  of  other  articles  and  also  books  were  circulated 
all  ( iver  the  place,  including  some  of  them  coming  to  me  sometimes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So  that  you  did  know  what  was  going  on,  you 
werii  being  consulted  about  what  w^as  going  on  in  the  IPK,^ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir,  I  was  not  being  consulted  about  what  was 
going  on.  I  was  receiving  some  of  the  material  that  was  thus  circu- 
lated. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  any  of  these  people  that 
have  refused  to  testify  before  this  committee  as  to  Communists,  when 
they  were  writing  the  articles  and  books  for  the  IPR,  did  you  know 
those  persons  at  the  time  these  contributions  were  being  made? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  knew  some  of  them.  I  knew  of  others.  I  did  not 
know  of  any  of  them  as  Communists. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  make  any  inquiry  or  did  you  know  of 
any  inquiry  about  their  communist  leanings,  or  being  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  just  said,  Senator,  that  it  never  entered  our 
heads  to  set  up  a  private  FBI  or  security  screenings  as  of  those  years 
of  the  1930's. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  mean  by  that  statement,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  "we  had  the  best  protection,"  do  you  mean  in  the  light  of  not 
being  of  the  opinion  that  there  was  penetration  by  Communists  ?  Not 
having  that  knowledge,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  What  we  were  concerned  with  at  that  time  was  the 
general  question  of  propaganda  or  biased  presentation  of  views,  any 
propaganda,  any  bias.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  most  people  were 
concerned  about  in  those  days  was  Japanese  propaganda  more  than 
anything  else. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Can  we  agree  that  the  Communists  are  very 
clever  in  giving  out  their  propaganda  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly  we  can  agree  on  that.  I  have  already 
stated  that  in  those  days,  I  think,  most  people  were  not  yet  aware  of 
the  danger  of  Communist  conspiracy  or  long-range  operation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  All  right.  Then  do  you  not  think  that  with  the 
lack  of  knowledge,  that  it  may  have  been  possible  for  the  Communists 
to  penetrate  IPR,  and  carry  on  their  propaganda  ? 


2984  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  I  am  saying  is  that  the  output  at  that  time  did 
not  impress  me  or  other  people  to  whom  the  material  was  circulated 
as  Communist  propaganda. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Going  back  now  to  this  problem  as  to  whether 
or  not  it  is  innocence  rather  than  knowledge  that  they  did  penetrate 
IPR,  do  you  think  that  we  ought  to  disclose  to  the  public,  if  it  was 
a  fact,  that,  innocently,  as  far  as  anybody  that  was  honest  about  the 
thing  in  the  IPR,  allowed  penetration  to  be  had,  not  knowing  that 
it  was  being  had?  Do  you  not  think  that  if  it  was  penetrated  we 
should  disclose  that  to  the  public  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  was  a  part  of  the  beginning  of  your  ques- 
tion that  I  did  not  get,  Senator.    I  will  ask  to  have  it  read  back. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No;  I  will  give  it  again.  Suppose  we  assume 
for  the  next  question  that  there  was  no  permission  or  knowledge  upon 
any  of  the  managers  of  the  IPR — I  want  to  exclude  Mr.  Field — but 
that  as  far  as  you  were  concerned,  as  far  as  Carter  was  concerned,  as 
far  as  Holland  and  the  other  people  were  concerned,  that  it  was  be- 
cause it  never  entered  your  head  that  anybody  would  try  to  penetrate, 
but  that  they  did  pentrate,  should  not  that  fact  now  lie  brought  out 
to  the  public  so  that  in  the  future  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  pene- 
ration  to  be  had  without  knowledge? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  objection  whatever  to  that  information 
being  brought  out,  Senator.  In  fact,  I  highly  approve  of  it.  What  I 
disapprove  of,  in  the  way  in  which  the  evidence  has  been  stacked 
before  this  committee,  is  the  impression  that,  because  certain  people 
may  have  been  Communists  at  one  time,  and  I  don't  know  whether 
they  were  Communists  at  that  time  or  later,  that  certain  people  who 
may  have  been  Communists  at  that  time  were  in  the  IPR,  that  they 
also  controlled  the  policy  of  the  IPR  and  the  output  of  the  IPR. 

Now,  there  are  two  points  there :  First,  there  was  no  IPR  policy  to 
control ;  second,  any  honest  review  of  the  output  of  the  IPR  will  show 
that  it  did  not,  in  fact,  serve  Communist  interests. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  of  course,  now,  that  is  your  judgment  and 
you  are  giving  that  as  your  judgment  to  this  committee  of  seven  mem- 
bei-s.  hoping  that  they  will  adopt  your  judgment.  But  if  they  come  to 
a  different  conclusion,  are  you  going  to  accuse  them  of  bad  faith,  and 
is  not  that  what  you  are  doing  in  this? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir.  I  am  saying  that  this  committee  has  thus 
far  admitted  an  overwhelming  amount  of  accusations  and  allegations 
to  state,  imply,  or  insinuate  that  the  IPR  was  an  instrument  of  the 
Communists,  that  that  evidence  is  not  adequate,  that  the  other  side  has 
not  been  shown,  that  the  enormous  output  of  the  IPR  of  a  perfectly 
normal  and  even  conservative  character  has  been  disregarded,  and  that 
the  result  is  a  distorted  picture. 

Senator  Ferguson.  They  have  also  permitted  this  record  to  show 
today  that  you,  purely  on  hearsay,  have  branded  Louis  Budenz  as  an 
immoral  person,  and  other  than  a  Communist,  is  that  not  true? 

Should  we  immediately  censure  you  and  strike  from  this  record 
that  statement  ?    Or  should  we  let  it  stand  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  only  thing  you  could  do  there.  Senator,  would 
be  to  refuse  to  permit  me  to  quote  an  official  document. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  have  never  seen  the  official  document. 

Senator  O'Conor.  How  do  you  know  what  was  in  the  official  docu- 
ment if  you  admit  yourself  you  have  never  seen  it  or  consulted  it  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2985 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  what  my  counsel  would  say  to  this, 
but  my  feeling  is  that  the  relationship  between  counsel  and  client  is 
of  such  a  kind  that  I  was  entirely  entitled  to  take  his  word  for  it. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  know  Harrj^  Sacher  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Have  you  ever  had  any  conversation  or  corre- 
spondence with  him? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Have  you  ever  had  anybody  go  from  you  to  him  or 
from  him  to  you  and  ask  for  any  of  this  information  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  know  who  he  is  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  From  the  hearings,  from  the  mention  that  has  been 
made  here. 

Senator  Smith.  You  Imow  from  the  press  who  he  is,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  recall  seeing  his  name  in  the  press. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  recall  reading  about  the  trial  of  the 
Communists  in  New  York  City,  with  Judge  Medina  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  read  some  of  the  stories  of  the  trial  about  the 
Communists.     I  confess  I  didn't  make  any  minute  study. 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  are  at  the  top  of  page  14,  at  the  end  of  the 
second  paragraph. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  had  the  best  protection 
against  being  manipulated  or  duped  that  a  private  organization  could 
possibly  have — complete  openness  of  discussion  of  facts  and  ideas. 
All  research  data,  and  opinions  about  the  data,  were  constantly  being 
circulated  to,  and  commented  on  and  criticized  by,  people  who  were 
authorities  on  the  subject  and  who  had,  among  themselves,  many  dif- 
ferences of  opinion.  Under  that  system,  a  research  organization 
simply  cannot  be  slanted  or  controlled  to  promote  communism  or  any 
other  single  and  exclusive  policy. 

If  it  was  party  strategy  to  infiltrate  the  IPR,  I  did  not  suspect  it. 
Nor  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did  Senator  Ferguson,  who  was  a  member  of 
and  contributor  to  the  IPR  from  1936  to  1944 — years  when  I  was  active 
in  it,  or  Ray  Lyman  Wilbur  or  Newton  D.  Baker  or  Joseph  B. 
Chamberlain  or  Jerome  B.  Greene  or  Robert  Gordon  Sproul. 

Maybe  a  few  Communists  or  pro-Communists  did  work  for  the  IPR. 
1  suppose  that  a  few  worked  for  the  United  States  Government,  too, 
and  for  some  of  our  leading  papers  and  great  corporations.  It  does 
not  follow  that  this  made  them  communistic,  that  is,  the  employer, 
or  that  their  other  employees  or  executives  were  infected  with  the  virus. 
In  the  case  of  F.  V.  Field,  I  had  no  reason  to  consider  him  a  Commu- 
nist during  the  period  when  he  was  secretary  of  the  American  IPR 
in  the  1930's,  although  I  have  no  doubt  he  became  one  during  the  1940's. 
I  have  been  shocked  and  surprised  to  learn  recently  that  five  other 
people  connected  in  one  way  or  another  with  the  IPR  have  refused 
to  say  whether  they  were  ever  Communists.  If  they  were  Communists 
when  I  know,  or  knew  of  them,  then  I  saw  no  evidence  of  it.  And 
certainly  an  honest  and  complete  review  of  the  IPR  will  show  that 
it  was  never  controlled  or  dominated  by  Communists. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  inquire  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Yes,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  speak  of  five  other  people,  sir.  Do  you  know 
that  in  fact,  up  to  this  date,  there  have  been  11  ? 


2986  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Field,  Moore,  Rosinger,  Kathleen  Barnes,  William 
Mandel,  Mildred  Price,  Len  DeCaux,  the  two  Keeneys,  Deane,  and 
Allen. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Are  those  all  connected  with  the  IPR  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Your  knowledge  is  greater  than  mine. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Now,  because  of  your  reference  to  your  shock  and 
surprise  to  learn  that  certain  people  had  refused  to  answer,  I  would 
like  to  ask  this:  Do  you  think  that  refusal  to  answer  that  question 
indicates  that  the  person  refusing  is  a  member  of  the  Communist 
Party? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  thinl<:  that  that  is  the  general  presupposition  at 
the  present  time.  I  am  informed  that  people  sometimes  do  refuse 
to  answer  that  question  out  of  principle. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  five  that  I  have  mentioned  here,  nobody  even 
mentioned  that  principle.  Therefore,  I  must  make  the  inference 
that  they  probably  are  or  were  once  Communists. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  not  know  that  the  Con- 
stitution would  not  allow  them  to  claim  exemption  from  testifying 
only  on  principle,  that  they  must  invoke  the  fifth  amendment  which 
is  the  one  that  provides  that  he  shall  not  testify  against  himself? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  accept  your  authoritative  statement  on  that. 

Mr.  Smith.  Who  are  the  five  that  you  referred  to  here?  That  is,  in 
this  particular  spot. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Field,  Harriet  Moore,  Kathleen  Barnes,  Len  De- 
Caux, Rosinger,  and  Allen,  besides  Field. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  not  know  that  by  the  time  those  persons 
you  named  had  testified  there  were  many  more  than  five  who  had  re- 
fused to  answer  that  $64  question  ? 

Mr.  Laittimore.  What  relation  did  they  have  to  the  IPR  or  to  me? 
I  can  only  speak  of  people  that  I  know. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  not  know  all  of  these  11  people  I  named? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Read  them  over.  I  think  there  are  several  I  never 
knew. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  Mr,  Field  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  knew  him. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  Harriet  Moore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  Lawrence  Rosinger  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  Joseph  Barnes? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  William  Mandel  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  SouR"wiNE.  Did  you  know  Harriet  Price  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  Len  DeCaux  ? 

Mr,  Latitmore.  Len  DeCaux,  I  think  I  have  met  him  ;  but  I  wouldn't 
recognize  him  if  he  walked  into  the  room. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  the  Keeneys  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  have  met  them  casually ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  Mr.  Deane? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Deane? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2987 

Mr.  SoTjRwiNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  so. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  you  know  James  S.  Allen  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  All  right,  that  establishes  who  you  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  any  of  these  witnesses  re- 
fused to  testify  that  they  knew  you  on  the  grounds  it  might  tend  to 
incriminate  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Here  goes  some  hearsay  evidence,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  asking  you  if  you  ever  heard  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Somebody  told  me  that  James  S.  Allen  so  testified. 
But  I  didn't  see  the  press  report  myself,  and  I  heard  about  that  after 
this  statement  was  prepared. 

Senator  Ferguson.  How  long  ago  was  this  statement  prepared  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  has  been  in  preparation  for  several  months. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  but  when  was  it  finished  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  finished,  maybe,  6  or  8  hours  before  it  was 
delivered  to  this  committee. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  why  was  not  Allen's  name  used  here  to 
make  it  six  ?     You  had  known  that  Allen  refused  to  testify. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  confining  m.y  remarks  to  people  that  I  know. 
I  can  only  be  shocked  and  surprised  about  people  I  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  Allen  ? 

Mr.  Lattimfre.  I  corresponded  with  him,  I  never  met  him.  At 
least,  I  don't  believe  I  did. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  mean  by  "know"  that  you  knew  them 
personally  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Or  had  some  contact  with  them ;  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Writing  and  corresponding  is  contact,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore." Yes ;  that  is  right.  Well,  I  have  included  him, 
haven't  I  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Have  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  did. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  The  witness  did  name  Mr.  Allen. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  right.  I  was  confused  here  because  I  first 
mentioned  five  people  besides  Field. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  then  testified  that  you  did  not  know  Mr.  Allen. 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Not  in  the  sense  that  I  don't  believe  I  ever  met  him. 
If  you  want  to  say  that  corresponding  means  knowing,  that  is  all  right, 
I  will  accept  that. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Just  so  the  record  shows  how  you  mean  when  you 
say. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  this  case  I  am  trying  to  oblige  you  by  meaning 
what  you  say. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  say  here  on  page  14,  "I  suppose 
that  a  few,"  meaning  a  few  Communists,  "worked  for  the  United 
States  Government,  too,  and  for  some  of  our  leading  papers  and  great 
corporations," 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  have  any  knowledge  of  any  Communists  who 
have  worked  for  the  United  States  Government? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  could  probably  provide  you  with  some 
names,  if  I  searched  newspaper  files.  I  can't  recall  offhand.  I  am 
not  an  expert  on  the  subject. 


2988  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  am  speaking  of  your  own  knowledge.  Do  you 
have,  yourself,  any  personal  knowledge  of  any  Communists  who  have 
worked  for  the  United  States  Government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  don't  believe  I  have. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  have  any  personal  knowledge  of  any  Com- 
munists who  have  worked  for  any  of  our  leading  papers  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Leading  papers  ?    No ;  I  don't  think  I  have. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  have  anj^  personal  knowledge  of  any  Com- 
munists who  have  worked  for  any  of  our  great  corporations  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't  think  I  have. 

Mr.  SouRAviNE.  If  we  may  go  back  to  page  12,  sir,  where  you  say, 
"The  investigative  staff  of  this  subcommittee  is  open  to  the  charge  of 
extraordinary  incompetence  for  trying  to  investigate  me  through  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Relations."  I  ask  you,  do  you  know  that  this 
subcommittee  began  this  particular  investigation  because  of  its  m- 
terest  in  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  is  in  the  record ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  that  the  subcommittee  started  out 
with  a  very  substantial  mass  of  documents  obtained  from  the  files 
of  the  IPR  in  a  manner  which  you  have  here  characterized  as  illegal  ? 

Mr.  LiiTTiMORE.  It  has  been  given  a  fair  amount  of  publicity,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  blame  the  staff  of  the  committee  for  the  fact 
that  after  we  got  into  those  files  we  found  your  name  on  document 
after  document  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  the  point  that  I  was  making  here, 
and  this  is  my  principal  concern  with  your  inquiry  into  the  Institute 
of  Pacific  Relations,  is  that  this  committee  or  its  staff'  have  tried  to  use 
the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  as  a  stick  to  beat  me  with.  And  I 
was  merely  pointing  out  that  if  they  wanted  to  beat  me  up  they  could 
do  it  better  with  the  Council  on  Foreign  Relations. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Does  your  ego,  sir_  compel  you  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  subcommittee  is  after  you  rather  than  investigating  the  In- 
stitute of  Pacific  Relations  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Not  my  ego ;  my  epidermis. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  committee 
is  after  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Do  you  think  that  any  other  conclusion  would  be 
possible  to  a  reasonable  person  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  am  asking  you  what  your  conclusion  is..  If  no 
other  conclusion  is  possible  to  a  reasonable  person,  I  assume  you  will 
say  "Yes,"  that  is  your  conclusion. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  that  is  my  conclusion. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all  of  the  questions  I  have 
at  that  point. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Are  there  any  other  questions  ? 

If  not,  then  will  you  continue,  Mr.  Lattimore?  It  occurs  to  me 
that  another  natural  break  would  be  at  the  top  of  page  19,  that  that 
would  be  a  statement  that  might  be  taken  up  at  one  time. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Fine.  The  committee  staff'  has  used  against  me 
letters  and  interoffice  memoranda  from  the  files  of  the  IPR.  I  have 
two  points  that  I  want  to  make  about  the  evidence  selected  from  these 
files. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2989 

(1)  Each  and  every  item  is,  in  the  context  of  its  time  and  subject, 
completely  innocent  and  explicable,  and  certainly  not  evidence  of 
subversive  activity. 

(2)  The  method  in  which  these  letters  and  memoranda  have  been 
used  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  startling  departure  from  any  possible  stand- 
ard of  fairness  or  objectivity.  They  have  been  presented  to  witnesses 
who  did  not  have  access  to  the  full  text,  and  to  witnesses  who,  though 
they  were  neither  the  writers  nor  the  recipients  of  this  "evidence",  have 
been  asked  to  interpret  what  the  original  writer  meant. 

As  the  outstanding  example  of  the  way  in  which  my  connections 
with  the  IPS  have  been  exploited  by  this  committee,  I  want  to  take  up  a 
letter  that  I  wrote  to  Mr.  E.  C.  Carter  on  July  10, 1938,  because  of  the 
unnecessary  and  rather  silly  mystery  wiiich  has  been  built  up  concern- 
ing it.  ]\Ir.  Carter,  as  well  as  a  number  of  people  who  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  letter,  have  been  asked  to  comment  on  it  before  this  subcom- 
mittee, whereas  I,  the  author  of  this  letter,  was  questioned  by  this  sub- 
committee for  between  5  and  6  hours,  in  executive  session,  2  weeks  be- 
fore the  public  questioning  of  Mr.  Carter,  and  was  not  asked  a  single 
question  about  it.  If  the  subcommittee's  intention  had  been  to  get  an 
explanation  of  this  letter,  I  could  easily  have  given  it  to  them.  Instead, 
Mr.  Carter  was  asked  to  explain  from  memory,  after  13  years  and  with- 
out being  allowed  to  see  the  full  text,  much  less  the  full  correspondence 
of  which  it  was  a  part,  what  he  thought  I  might  have  meant  by  a  num- 
ber of  expressions  that  I  used. 

I  therefore  wish  to  make  a  rather  extended  comm.ent. 

An  obvious  effort  has  been  made  to  try  to  convey  the  impression  that 
I  was  giving  Carter  instructions,  but  the  fact  is  that  I  did  not  take  the 
initiative  in  writing  this  letter.  Mr.  Carter  wrote  to  me,  and  to  a 
number  of  other  people,  asking  for  comments  on  the  Inquiry,  a  special 
research  job  to  be  undertaken  by  the  IPK,  to  which  I  have  referred. 
In  his  letter,  Mr.  Carter  had  said : 

Asiaticus  has  been  employed  to  prepare  a  major  monograph  on  certain  deter- 
mining factors  in  the  Chinese  situation.  Dr.  Chen  Han-seng  will  undertake  two 
important  sections  of  the  Chinese  study.  An  invitation  has  just  been  extended 
to  Mr.  Ch'ao-ting  Chi  to  undertake  two  other  sections. 

The  Inquiry  was  really  none  of  my  business.  As  I  have  said  I  did 
not  contribute  to  it,  and  had  no  administrative  or  supervisory  responsi- 
bility for  it.  Mr.  Carter,  however,  frequently  invited  comments  or 
advice  on  particular  IPR  enterprises  from  people  who  had  no  connec- 
tion with  them. 

A  great  deal  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  Asiaticus,  Chen  Han- 
seng,  and  Ch'ao-ting  Chi,  the  three  men  mentioned  by  Mr.  Carter,  have, 
many  years  later,  been  identified  before  this  subcommittee  as  Commun- 
ists. Asiaticus  was  reported  killed  during  the  war.  The  two  Chinese 
are  reported  to  be  now  working  for  the  Chinese  Communist  Govern- 
ment, but  that  is  true  of  a  great  many  Chinese  who  were  loj^al  to  Chiang 
in  earlier  years.  As  it  turned  out,  eventually  none  of  these  three  men 
completed  a  contribution  to  the  Inquiry  series. 

My  reply  to  Mr.  Carter  was  that  he  was  cagey  to  invite  these  three 
men  to  contribute.  I  thought  that  Mr.  Carter  was  cagey  in  exactly 
the  same  sense  that  a  newspaper  columnist  once  described  Senator 
Homer  Ferguson  as  "benign  and  cagey."  I  think  that  Mr.  Carter 
can  be  very  aptly  described  as  a  benign  and  cagey  man.  In  his  work 
for  the  IPR  he  has  always  tried  to  increase  international  knowledge 

88.348— 52— pt.  9 7 


2990  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

and  understanding,  which  is  benign,  and  he  has  always  tried  to  do  so 
by  mixing  together  in  the  free-market  place  of  discussion  as  many 
different  points  of  view  as  possible,  which  is  equally  commendable  in 
my  opinion. 

I  also  stated  to  Carter  that  the  three  men  suggested  would  bring 
out  "absolutely  essential  radical  issues."  Gentleman,  you  mi^st  re- 
member the  year  1938,  and  the  context.  I  used  the  word  "radical," 
of  course,  in  its  dictionary  sense  of  "fundamental."  What  I  had  in 
mind — as  Carter  and  anybody  else  would  have  known,  were  the 
radical  problems  of  reform  in  China  and  China's  relations  with  for- 
eign powers.  In  the  course  of  Japanese  aggression,  there  had  been 
conspicuous  examples  of  the  Chinese  of  invaded  territory  refusing 
to  support  the  war-lords  who  oppressed  them.  They  passively  ac- 
cepted the  Japanese,  because  they  had  nothing  to  fight  for.  This  had 
led  to  widespread  demands  for  reforms  in  order  to  give  the  Chinese 
people  something  to  fight  for,  including  drastic  economic  reforms, 
especially  in  rural  taxes  and  in  the  relations  between  landlords  and 
sharecropper  tenants. 

If  China  won  the  war  these  radical  issues  w'ould  continue  to  exist 
and  perhaps  might  be  even  more  pressing.  As  we  found  in  every 
country  that  was  a  victim  of  aggression  in  the  Second  World  War, 
soldiers  who  have  just  defeated  a  foreign  aggressor  and  people  who 
have  suffered  from  invasion  are  likely  to  demand  a  better  standard 
of  life. 

Eadical  international  issues  were  also  looming  on  the  horizon. 
Chiang  Kai-shek  had  already  been  pressing  for  revision  of  China's 
international  treaties.  With  China  victorious,  the  Chinese  people 
were  certainly  going  to  refuse  to  go  back  to  the  old  status  under  which 
China  was  in  effect  a  tributary  country  to  the  United  States  and 
Britain  as  well  as  to  Japan  and  other  countries.  China  was  certainly 
going  to  demand  a  place  among  the  great  powers  of  the  world.  Once 
we  got  into  the  war,  the  United  States  recognized  this,  and  over 
Churchill's  objections  we  voted  for  China  as  one  of  the  Big  Five  of 
the  United  Nations. 

In  my  letter  to  Mr.  Carter  I  went  on  to  say  that — 

for  the  general  purposes  of  tlie  inquiry  it  seems  to  me  that  the  good  scoring 
position,  for  the  IPR,  differs  with  different  countries. 

By  "different  countries"  I  meant,  of  course,  the  different  National 
Councils  of  the  IPR. 

For  China — 

I  wrote — 

my  hunch  is  that  it  will  pay  to  keep  behind  the  official  Chinese  Communist 
position,  far  enough  not  to  be  covered  by  the  same  label  but  enough  ahead 
of  the  active  Chinese  liberals  to  be  noticeable. 

The  situation  as  of  1938  was  as  follows :  The  Communists  were  taking, 
for  them,  a  very  moderate  position.  They  were  urging  rent  reduction 
and  other  economic  reforms.  The  Chinese  liberals  were  urging  a 
wider  political  representation  and  an  end  of  the  Kuomintang  one- 
party  system,  but  were  hesitating  at  economic  reforms.  I  thought 
economic  reforms  were  essential  (and  I  remind  you  that  it  is  now 
a  generally  accepted  thing  that  such  reforms,  especially  rural  re- 
forms, are  an  imperative  necessity  all  over  Asia  if  disastrous  Com- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2991 

inunist  revolutions  are  to  be  forestalled)  ;  and  in  tins  respect  my 
position  was  in  advance  of  the  Chinese  liberals.  However,  as  I  was 
not  a  Communist,  Carter  was  not  a  Communist,  and  the  IPR  was 
not  Communist,  I  did  not  want  the  IPR  to  play  into  the  hands  of 
the  Communists  by  advocating  the  same  economic  reforms  and  allow- 
ing them  to  claim  the  credit.  The  Communists  were  already  claim- 
ing that  they  and  they  alone  were  bold  enough  to  demand  economic 
reforms.  I  thought  that  approval,  among  foreign  friends  of  China, 
of  the  idea  of  fundamental  reforms,  especially  rural  reforms,  might 
encourage  the  Chinese  liberals  to  speak  up  and  to  break  the  Com- 
munist monopoly  of  claiming  to  be  progressive. 

I  also  wrote :  "For  the  U.  S.  S.  R.,  back  their  international  policy 
in  general" — ■ — 

Senator  Smith.  The  U.  S.  S.  R.,  is  that  the  Soviet  Russia  that  you 
are  talking  about  ? 

Mr.  Lati-iimore.  Soviet  Russia,  yes  [reading]  : 

But  without  using  their  slogans  and,  above  all,  without  giving  them  or  anybody 
else  an  impression  of  subservience. 

This  period,  1938,  was  the  period  of  maximum  Soviet  cooperation 
with  the  United  States,  Britain,  France,  and  the  League  of  Nations. 
It  was  the  stated  policy  of  tlie  U.  S.  S.  R. — almost  universally  credited 
at  the  time  as  in  good  faith — to  support  international  unity  and  to 
resist  Japanese  and  also  German  and  Italian  aggression.  Even  by 
1938,  however,  I  had  learned  through  my  experience  in  dealing  with 
Russians  as  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs,  that  it  is  a  standard  Soviet 
maneuver  to  try  to  make  every  act  of  agreement  between  equals  look 
as  if  it  were  acceptance  of  Soviet  leadership.  I  did  not  believe  in 
any  such  subservience  to  the  Russians,  and  I  did  not  want  the  Institute 
to  make  the  mistake  of  allowing  the  Russians  to  claim,  or  anybody 
else  to  believe,  that  agreement  as  to  international  unity  and  against 
aggression  was  an  act  of  subservience  to  Russian  policy. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  have  one  statement  here  in  relation  to  the 
letter  that  indicated  to  me,  and  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  right, 
that  Mr.  Carter  was  prohibited  from  reading  this  letter,  the  total  of 
the  letter,  the  whole  letter. 

INIr.  Lattimore.  Where  are  we  now  ? 

JNIr.  SouRWiNE.  On  page  15,  near  the  bottom,  the  sixth  line  from 
the  bottom. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  impression  I  got  from  the  transcript, 
Senator.    If  I  am  wrong,  I  should  be  glad  to  be  corrected. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Without  being  allowed  to  read  the  full  text. 
I  show  5^ou  the  transcript  on  page  3G,  where  the  letter  was  identified 
and  Senator  Eastland  asked,  "Wlio  is  the  letter  from  or  to?" 

Mr.  MoRKis.  It  is  from  Mv.  Owen  Lattimore  to  Mr.  Carter,  dated  July  10,  1938. 

The  Chairman.   I  think  the  witness  should  do  it. 

Senator  Watkins.   He  probably  can  identify  it  better  than  anyone. 

Mr.  Carter.  I  would  like  to  read  it  later,  but  identify  it  as  having  been 
written  by  Lattimore  to  me,  that  I  received  it. 

The  Chairman.   Thank  you. 

Mr.  ]MoRRis.  Mr.  Carter,  I  would  like  to  read  two  paragraphs  from  this  and 
fisk  your  comment  on  them.    This  is  Mr.  Lattimore  writing  to  you. 

Would  that  indicate  that  he  was  not  allowed  to  read  it?  That  is. 
when  he  had  it,  identified  it.  and  said  that  he  would  like  to  read  it 
later,  and  then  it  goes  in  in  its  entirety  3  pages  later  as  exhibit  4? 


2992  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Later  means  after  the  questioning,  does  it  not  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes;  it  becomes  a  part  of  the  official  record; 
it  is  put  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  he  had  not  read  it  in  full  before  he  was 
questioned. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  that  is  not  what  you  said.  You  indicate 
that  this  committee  kept  him  from  reading  it  and  would  only  allow 
him  to  see  two  paragi-aphs.    Is  that  a  fair  statement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  accept  your  correction  on  that,  Senator.  All 
I  can  say  is  that  only  part  of  my  time  is  available,  and  with  very 
limited  means  I  have  tried  to  make  this  statement  as  accurate  as  pos- 
sible, and  I  think  it  compares  favorably  on  the  subject  of  accuracy 
with  the  investigation  that  has  been  carried  out  by  this  committee  with 
many,  many  thousands  of  dollars  of  the  people's  tax-paying  money. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Of  course,  you  can  keep  repeating  that,  and 
the  committee  is  going  to  allow  you  to  keep  repeating  that,  as  to  what 
you  think  about  the  committee. 

I  know  of  nobody  on  the  committee  that  is  going  to  interfere  with 
you  if  you  put  that  into  the  record  with  every  answer. 

Senator  Smith.  Let  me  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  know  that  this  very  letter  that  you  are  talk- 
ing about,  the  cagey  letter,  that  that  was  in  Mr.  Carter's  barn  up  in 
Massachusetts  on  his  farm  in  Massachusetts  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  presume  that  is  where  it  came  from. 

Senator  Smith.  I  say,  Did  you  know  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  say  that  from  oiffhand.  I  presume  so, 
from  the  point  that  it  was  in  the  record. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  know  that  those  records  of  the  IPR  were 
taken  out  of  New  York  City  and  taken  up  to  Mr.  Carter's  farm  and 
put  in  his  barn? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  So  I  understand  j  yes. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  know  at  that  time  they  were  taken  up 
there  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Smith.  You  never  heard  about  that  until  the  public  press 
announced  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  inquire  briefly  as  to  another 
point?     On  page  15  of  your  statement,  Mr.  Lattimore,  in  the 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Before  you  go  on,  Mr.  Sourwine,  may  I  point  out 
that  my  reference  about  being  allowed  covers  more  than  the  question 
of  the  full  text  referred  to  by  Senator  Ferguson.  I  refer  also  to 
"much  less  the  full  correspondence  of  which  it  was  a  part." 

I  believe  it  is  true,  is  it  not.  Senator  Ferguson,  that  officers  and 
members  of  the  institute  have  not  been  allowed  to  have  access  to  the 
files  while  they  were  in  your  custody  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  know  of  no  such  rule. 

Mr.  Morris.  No,  that  is  wrong,  Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Carter  has 
been  invited  down  to  look  at  that  particular  correspondence  you  are 
talking  about,  by  written  letter. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Has  he  been  allowed  full  access  to  all  of  the  files 
that  you  hold  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  answered  that  particular  question,  Mr.  Lattimore. 
Mr.  Carter  asked  about  that  one,  and  he  was  invited  to  come  down 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2993 

and  look  at  it.  He  has  never  availed  himself  of  the  invitation.  That 
is  in  writing. 

Senator  Smith.  I  think  Mr.  Lattimore's  question  pointed  to  the 
fact  as  to  whether  or  not  we  would  be  willing  to  turn  over  the  files  to 
Mr.  Carter  and  his  cohorts,  and  we  have  not  been  willing  to  turn 
them  back  to  them  because  we  had  enough  trouble  getting  them  in  the 
first  instance. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Might  I  inquire,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

On  page  15  of  your  statement,  Mr.  Lattimore,  in  the  third  para- 
graph from  the  top,  near  the  end  of  that  paragraph,  you  use  the  word 
"evidence."    You  say: 

They  have  been  presented  to  witnesses  who  did  not  have  access  to  the  full 
text,  and  to  witnesses  who,  though  they  were  neither  the  writers  nor  the  recipi- 
ents of  this  "evidence" — 

you  put  the  word  '"evidence"  in  quotes.  When  you  were  reading  the 
statement  you  read  the  quotation  marks. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  What  is  your  purpose  in  putting  that  word  "evi- 
dence" in  quotes? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  emphasize  the  highly  selective  nature  of  the 
material  on  which  witnesses  have  been  questioned  before  this  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  use  the  word  "evidence"  in  the  legal  sense  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  that  is  the  legal  sense  or 
not. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Does  the  word  "evidence"  have  a  connotation  other 
than  the  legal  sense  in  your  mind? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know,  Mr.  Sourwine.    I  am  not  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  had  no  purpose  in  using  those  quotation  marks 
to  indicate  your  feeling  that  the  documents  in  question  were  not  evi- 
dence, or  did  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  intention  was  to  indicate  that  they  were  a  mere 
fragment  of  the  evidence. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  Over  on  page  16,  you  refer  to  a  newspaper  colum- 
nist who  described  Senator  Ferguson  as  benign  and  cagey.  Will  you 
tell  the  committee  who  that  was  and  when  the  column  appeared  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  John  O'Donnell,  in  his  column  "Capital  Stuff,"  in 
the — what  is  the  name  of  this  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  By  "this"  you  mean  a  newspaper  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  It  is  the  Daily  something  or  other.  It  is 
dated  Washington,  D.  C,  August  9,  and  was  published  in  this  par- 
ticular paper,  the  name  of  which  is  not  on  the  top,  on  August  10, 
1948. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  how  did  you  come  across  this  particular  col- 
umn ?    How  did  you  find  it  or  who  gave  it  to  you  ? 

Mv.  Lattimore.  I  don't  remember.  I  have  an  enormous  stack  of 
clippings  at  home.  I  clip  as  much  as  I  can  referring  to  the  Far  East, 
and  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  identify  where  individual  clips  came 
from. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  that  a  clipping  from  your  files  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  a  clipping  from  my  files ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  It  has  been  in  your  files  since  approximately  the 
date  on  which  it  appeared? 


2994  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore,  Presumably. 

Ml'.  SotTEwiNE.  Not  specifically  called  to  your  attention  in  connec- 
tion with  this  hearing  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  it  was  not  called  to  my  attention.  It  was 
found  by  me  by  accident  when  pouring  through  a  stack  of  stuff. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  On  page  17,  sir,  of  your  statement,  at  the  end  of  the 
first  paragraph  on  that  page,  you  refer  to  reforms  in  the  relations 
between  landlords  and  sharecropper  tenants. 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  Tliat  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Would  you  say  you  were  referring  to  agrarian 
reforms  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  say  I  was  referring  to  agrarian  reforms ; 
yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  on  page  18  you  use  the  term  "rural  reforms" 
twice.     Were  you  there  referring  to  agrarian  reforms  ? 

l\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  is  a  little  bit  of  a  quibble,  isn't  it,  Mr. 
Sourwine?  "Rural  reform"  and  "agrarian  reform"  are  virtually 
interchangeable  terms. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  what  I  thought.  x\.nd  the  answer  is  "Yes," 
is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Surely. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  all  of  the  questions  I  have. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  in  your  reference  here  to  Mr.  Carter 
not  being  allowed  to  see  the  full  text  of  the  letter,  you  have  known  all 
of  the  time,  have  you  not,  that  until  those  records  were  seized  in  Mr. 
Carter's  barn,  that  the  possession  of  all  of  those  records,  including 
that  letter,  were  in  him  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Presumably,  yes. 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  did  you  know  anything  about  the  difficuUy 
and  the  delay  that  the  committee  experienced  in  getting  some  other 
records  that  turned  out  to  be  in  Mr.  Field's  basement  and  unbeknown 
to  the  committee,  and  some  that  were  not  in  the  barn  ?  Did  you  know 
about  those  records? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  saw  some  reference  to  it  in  the  press. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  know  anything  about  those  records  being 
put  in  Mr.  Field's  basement  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  a  thing. 

Senator  Smith.  You  had  severed  your  connection  with  IPR  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  no  connection — no,  I  was  connected  with  the 
IPR,  but  I  was  not  consulted  on  the  disposal  of  back  files,  dead  files. 

Senator  Smith.  So  you  disclaim  any  knowledge  or  responsibility 
for  the  records  that  were  taken  out  of  the  IPR  office  and  put  in  Mr. 
Field's  basement  in  New  York  City? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  responsibility  for  it  whatever. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  have  anything  whatever  to  do  with  the 
suggestion  that  these  records  of  the  IPR  be  taken  from  New  York 
and  transported  to  Mr.  Carter's  barn  in  Massachusetts? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Senator  Smith.  Were  you  connected  with  the  IPR  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  probably  at  that  time — I  would  have  to 
know  the  exact  year,  but  I  was  very  likely  a  trustee  at  that  time. 

Senator  Smith.  As  a  trustee,  you  had  full  access  to  the  records  of 
the  IPR,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Presumably,  if  I  wanted  them. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  2995 

Senator  Smith.  And  you  availed  yourself  of  that  right  at  any 
time  that  you  wished  to  examine  IPR  records? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  I  ever  availed  myself  of  it. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  think  you  did? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  ever  go  to  Mr.  Carter's  farm  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  been  to  Mr.  Carter's  farm,  yes. 

Senator  Smith.  When  did  you  go  to  Mr.  Carter's  farm? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  remember.  It  must  have  been  years  ago, 
the  last  time. 

Senator  Smith.  You  know  the  barn  in  which  these  papers  were 
placed  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  the  big  barn  on  his  place.  It  is  probably 
the  same  one. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  ever  go  in  that  barn? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  have  been  there. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  ever  go  to  the  barn  while  any  of  these 
papers  were  in  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea  whether  they  were  there  or  not. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  examine  any  of  the  files  of  the  IPR  in  Mr. 
Carter's  barn? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  didn't. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  ask  for  any  of  those  papers  to  be  brought 
from  his  bam  for  you  to  examine,  either  in  his  house  or  elsewhere? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Smith.  So  you  never  saw  any  of  these  records  after  they 
were  taken  to  Mr.  Carter's  barn  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  I  never  saw  any  of 
them. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right,  Mr.  Lattimore,  would  you  proceed.  It 
would  appear  that  a  natural  break  would  occur  at  page  24,  so  will  you 
continue  until  that  point?    It  would  move  things  along. 

Senator  Smith.  Before  we  leave  that,  on  page  18,  where  you  describe 
what  your  hunch  was,  that  you  wanted  to  keep  behind  the  official 
Chinese  Communist  position  far  enough  not  to  be  covered  by  the  same 
label,  you  meant  by  that  that  you  did  not  want  this  group  to  be  known 
as  associates  of  the  Soviet  Communists? 

Mr.  LvTTiMORE.  No;  I  meant  that  I  didn't  think  that  independent 
investigation  should  be  conducted  in  the  way  that  would  enable  any- 
body to  say  that  any  outside  influence  was  directed. 

Senator" Smith.  And  then  you  cautioned  "far  enough  not  to  be  cov- 
ered by  the  same  label." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  think  it  would  be  detrimental  to  the  organ- 
ization to  have  the  Soviet  label  placed  on  its  activities  at  that  time? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  it  is  very  difficult  for  me  to  say  in  1952 
exactly  what  I  had  in  mind  in  1938,  in  writing  an  obviously  hasty  and 
informal  letter. 

Senator  Smith.  I  can  quite  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can  say  that  the  best  of  my  recollection  at  that 
attitude  on  questions  in  China — this  was  after  the  all-out  Japanese 
attack  on  China  had  begun — my  feeling  at  that  time  was  that  the  more 
liberal  representatives  of  the  Chinese  Kuomintang  and  other  Chinese 


2996  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

who  were  not  members  of  any  party  had  a  great  opportunity  at  that 
time  to  carry  on  reforms  along  with  the  war,  that  would  put  the  whole 
question  of  the  modernization  and  postwar,  wartime,  and  postwar 
development,  of  China  on  a  footing  of  progress  in  a  democratic  direc- 
tion, and  not  allow  these  very  simple  and  necessary  reforms  in  China 
to  be  captured  by  the  Communists  or  have  the  Communists  claim  that 
they  dominated  the  whole  business. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  I  asked  you  what  I  thought  was  a 
very  simple  question  in  its  form,  and  I  think  the  answer  would  be 
simple. 

I  asked  you  whether  or  not  at  that  time,  when  you  were  referring 
to  this  same  label,  you  regarded  that  it  would  be  detrimental  to  this 
group  to  have  the  Communist  label  placed  on  them? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Again;  with  all  of  the  reservations  that  are  neces- 
sary in  trying  to  think  up  exactly  what  I  meant  in  1938,  14  years  ago, 
I  would  say  that  my  feeling  was  probably  quite  as  much  about  the 
nature  of  the  problem  in  China  as  it  was  about  the  nature  of  the  prob- 
lem lying  before  the  IPR. 

Senator  Smith.  I  was  not  asking  about  the  problem.  I  was  asking 
you  the  one  simple  question :  Did  you  at  that  time  regard  the  Soviet 
label  as  detrimental? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  have  regarded  any  approach  to  a  monopoly 
to  the  labels  of  progress,  reform,  democracy,  and  so  forth,  by  the  Com- 
munists in  China  was  highly  detrimental. 

Senator  Smith.  I  was  asking  about  the  Soviet  label  which  you 
apparently  are  referring  to  here.  You  cautioned  them  to  keep  far 
enough  not  to  be  covered  by  the  same  label.  But  enough  ahead  of  the 
active  Chinese  liberals  to  be  noticeable. 

Now  did  you  not  mean  by  that  that  you  did  not  want  the  Soviet 
label  to  be  put  on  in  the  first  instance,  and  yet  you  wanted  them  far 
enough  ahead  of  the  Chinese  liberals  so  that  it  would  be  noticeable 
that  you  were  not  going  along  with  the  Chinese  liberals? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  made  it  fairly  clear  that  what  I  wanted 
to  do  was  to  spur  on  and  encourage,  if  possible,  the  leadership  of  neces- 
sary reforms  in  China  by  the  non- Communist  Chinese.  And  again, 
speaking  after  14  years,  my  supposition  would  be  that  what  I  was 
referring  to  was  not  to  let  the  Communists  put  their  label  on  reforms, 
and  not  a  question  of  just  the  general  public  thinking  that  this  is 
Communist. 

Senator  Smith.  Further  down  on  page  18,  you  also  wrote : 

for  the  U.  S.  S.  R.— 

and  you  mean  by  that  Soviet  Russia  ? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 
Senator  Smith  (continuing)  : 

Back  their  international  policy  in  general,  but  without  using  their  slogans  and, 
above  all,  without  giving  them  or  anybody  else  an  impression  of  subservience. 

In  other  words,  you  were  suggesting  that  they  follow  the  interna- 
tional policy  of  the  Soviets,  were  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  I  was  speaking  then  in  the  context  of  the  fact 
that  this  was  the  most  cooperative  and  internationalist  period  of 
Soviet  foreign  policy,  when  I  think  most  people  accepted  the  idea  that 
the  Soviet  line  at  that  time,  which  was  the  indivisibility  of  peace  and 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2997 

SO  on,  was  in  good  faith.  And  I  thought,  and  so  did  many  people  in 
this  country  and  in  Europe,  that  this  was  a  good  kind  of  policy  to 
follow. 

But  I  certainly  did  not  want — I  would  not  do  it  myself,  and  I  would 
not  want  any  organization  with  which  I  was  connected — to  encourage 
the  Russians  to  think  that  we  had  no  minds  of  our  own  and  were 
letting  them  make  up  our  minds. 

Senator  Smith.  Why  were  you  counseling  Mr.  Carter  to  back  their 
international  policy  in  general? 

JMr.  Lattimore.  The  policy  at  that  time  was  a  policy  of  resistance 
to  aggression,  both  in  Europe  and  in  Asia.  And  if  that  had  been  at 
the  time  the  over-all  policy  of  Britain  or  of  France,  I  would  have 
said  back  their  policy. 

Senator  Smith.  I  said  back  their  international  policy,  Russia's 
policy,  in  general. 

Mr.  Latti]more.  That  policy  at  that  time,  as  of  the  late  1930's,  was, 
in  my  opinion,  a  very  good  policy  of  united  international  resistance  to 
aggression.  I  approved  it  when  the  Russians  followed  that  policy 
just  as  I  disapprove  of  it,  of  the  Russians,  now  when  they  are  guilty 
of  aggression. 

Senator  Smith.  That  was  not  their  international  policy  in  general, 
was  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  1938 ;  yes. 

Senator  Smith.  Were  they  not  still  pursuing  the  Communist  pol- 
icy then  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  1938  they  were  pursuing  a  policy  of  maximum 
cooperation  with  the  then  League  of  Nations,  with  Britain  and, 
France,  and  so  on. 

Senator  Smith.  Yet  their  general  international  policy  was  Commu- 
nist, was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  you  are  going  into  questions  of  what 
people  knew  or  thought  about  Soviet  Russia  in  the  i930's  from  the 
point  of  view  of  what  we  know  and  think  ahSit  Russia  in  the  1950's. 
I  do  not  claim  that  in  the  1930's  I  knew  as  much  about  the  character 
of  Russian  or  Communist  policy  as  I  think  I  know  now. 

I  have  this  feeling  of  the  possibility  of  cooperation  with  Russia 
is  not  one  that  is  peculiar  to  me.  It  lasted  well  after  the  1930's.  As 
late  as  1942,  General  MacArthur  said  "The  hopes  of  civilization  rest 
on  the  worthy  shoulders  of  the  courageous  Russian  Army." 

In  1943,  the  New  York  Times 

Senator  Smith.  He  did  not  say  anything  about  the  political  policy 
of  Russia,  did  he?  He  is  talking  about  the  army.  He  is  talking 
about  the  fighting  qualities  of  the  army,  is  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  have  said  that  in  1942  a  major  part  of  the 
Russian  policy  was  expressed  in  the  actions  of  its  army.  But  I  may 
be  mistaken. 

In  1943,  the  New  York  Times,  in  an  editorial,  wrote:  "We  can  do 
business  with  Stalin,  and  that  business  will  help  our  political  rela- 
tions with  the  Russians.  A  tenth  of  the  human  beings  of  the  world 
are  on  the  way  to  higher  living  standards  in  Russia." 

In  1946,  in' the  Catholic  Quarterly,  the  Reverend  George  H.  Dunne 
wrote :  "If  Europe  moves  all  the  way  to  communism,  it  will  not  be  be- 
cause of  Russian  intervention  but  because  of  the  obstructionist  tactics 
of  die-hard  reactionaries." 


2998  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

In  1942,  tlie  Chicago  Tribune  wrote- 


Senator  Smith.  jSone  of  those  people  wrote  such  letters  as  you  did 
here  to  Mr.  Carter ;  did  they  ?  I  am  asking  what  you  said,  what  you 
meant,  not  what  the  New  York  Times  said  or  what  anyone  else  said. 

Mr.-  Lattimore,  Senator,  I  am  merely  trying  to  make  a  little  bit 
plainer  the  fact  that  I  think  is  fairly  plan :  That  I  showed  at  that  time 
an  optimistic  view  of  the  possibility  of  cooperating  with  Russia  and 
with  a  number  of  other  nations  against  the  kind  of  aggression  that  the 
Germans,  Italians,  and  Japanese  were  putting  on. 

It  seems  to  me  a  little  bit — I  don't  know  quite  what  the  word  is, 
but  perhaps  a  little  bit  inconsistent — to  demand  that  I  prove  that 
everybody  who  felt  the  same  way  that  I  did  also  wrote  to  the  same 
people  that  I  wrote  to. 

Senator  Smith.  I  was  asking  you  about  your  language.  But  if  that 
is  your  answer,  that  is  all  right.  I  was  asking  you  about  your  specific 
language  which  was  quoted  in  that  statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  indicated  that  back  in  the  late  1930's  and 
the  early  1940's  you  did  not  have  knowledge  of  the  Communist  in- 
filtration; is  that  not  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  not  this  letter  that  Senator  Smith  has 
just  been  asking  you  about,  that  part,  indicate  that  you  did  have  some 
knowledge  of  the  operations  of  Communist  infiltration  and  Com- 
munist tactics  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  Senator ;  that  is  a  little  bit  far-fetched. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  say  it  would  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  had  experience  with  the  Russian  representa- 
tives in  the  IPR,  that  they  were  a  highly  combative  bunch,  and  that 
any  time  there  was  agreement  or  even  approach  to  agreement  with 
the  Russians  they  claimed  it  was  because  other  people  had  agreed  with 
them  and  not  because  they  had  agreed  with  other  people. 

The  difference  between  that  and  political  infiltration  seems  to  me  to 
be  fairly  obvious.  * 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  were  considered  as  a  student  of  inter- 
national law,  of  international  affairs  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir.  In  those  years  I  was  not  considered  a 
student  of  either.  I  have  never,  in  fact,  been  a  student  of  international 
law,  and  so  far  as  I  was  a  student  of  international  affairs,  my  primary 
qualifications,  in  1938,  were  based  on  my  specialized  work  in  the 
Mongol  border  regions  of  China. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  did  not  look  into  the  question  of 
strategy  and  the  tactics  of  communism  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir ;  at  that  time  I  didn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  show  you  a  report  here  headed  "Under  Trojan 
horse  tactics,"  what  was  printed  as  of  1935  about  their  tactics.  If  you 
did  not  know  about  that,  how  do  you  account  for  no  one  in  the  IPR, 
which  was  interested  in  international  law  and  international  politics, 
and  problems  in  the  Far  East? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  can't  answer  for  other  people  in  the  IPR,  Senator 
Ferguson.  All  I  can  say  is  that  as  of  1938  I  did  not  regard  myself,  and 
was  not  regarded  by  anybody  else,  as  an  expert  on  any  kind  of 
communism. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  ask  the  research  director  of  the  committee  to 
read  that  into  the  record  at  this  place. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  2999 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Senator,  you  will  identify  it  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes.  It  is  part  of  the  transcript,  as  I  nnder- 
stand  it,  the  identification. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Suppose  when  reading  it,  you  give  the  identifi- 
cation first. 

Mr.  Mandel.  This  is  a  quotation  from  the  House  Committee  on  Un- 
American  Activities  report  dated  1939.  On  page  27  the  annual  report 
reads  as  follows : 

In  1935,  the  Communists  changed  their  tactics,  their  strategy  and  tactics,  to 
wliut  is  now  Ivnown  as  the  Trojan  horse  tactics.  Georgi  Dimitrov  in  an  address  to 
the  Seventh  Congress  of  the  Communist  International  held  in  Moscow,  in  August 
1935,  said:  "Comrades,  you  remember  the  ancient  tale  of  the  capture  of  Troy? 
Troy  was  inaccessible  to  the  armies  attacking  her,  thanks  to  her  impregnable 
walls,  and  the  attacking  army,  after  suffering  many  sacrifices,  was  unable  to 
achieve  victory  until,  with  the  aid  of  the  famous  Trojan  horse,  it  managed  to 
penetrate  to  the  very  heart  of  the  enemy's  camp.  We  revolutionary  workers,  it 
appears  to  me,  should  not  be  shy  about  using  the  same  tactics." 

Printed  from  the  Workers  Libi-ary  Publishers,  New  York  City,  a  Communist 
publishing  house,  in  reporting  the  full  text  of  the  Dimitrov  address  to  the  Com- 
munist International,  July  25  to  August  21, 1935. 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  see  what  earthly  relevance  that  has  to  what 
we  are  talking  about.  But  I  do  think  it  is  a  pity  tiiat  Georgi  Dimitrov 
didn't  go  into  the  question  of  whether  wooden  liorses  didn't  have 
wooden  horse  feathers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  your  answer  to  no  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  a  comment. 

Senator  O'Conor.  As  I  have  stated  before,  it  would  appear  to  be  a 
connected  statement  from  pages  19  to  24.  If  we  proceed  to  read  that 
uninterruptedly  it  would  be  more  expeditious.  All  right,  Mr. 
Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  personal  damage  that  has  been  done  to  me  by 
the  way  in  which  this  subcommittee  has  allowed  malicious  testimony  to 
be  stacked  against  me  is  probably  beyond  repair.  But  much  more 
important  is  the  damage  that  has  been  done  to  my  country,  the  country 
of  which  I  am  only  one  private  citizen,  and  the  damage  that  has  been 
done  to  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  policy  of  our  country. 

When  China  fell  to  the  Chinese  Communists,  it  was  a  grave  set-back 
to  the  interests  of  this  country,  an  unmitigated  tragedy.  This  particu- 
lar outcome  of  the  Second  World  War,  the  establislmient  of  a  Com- 
munist government  in  China,  was  the  result  of  complex  causes.  Some 
of  these  causes  go  far  back  in  history.  Some  were  the  results  of  the 
changing  balance  of  power  produced  by  the  Second  World  War.  Some 
were  due  to  the  decay  and  internal  corruption  of  the  previous  govern- 
ment of  China. 

I  have  been,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  a  careful  student  of  the  causes, 
course,  and  outcome  of  this  great  contemporary  catastrophe.  I  be- 
lieve that  in  part  it  could  be  foreseen  and  was  in  fact  foreseen  by 
various  individuals.  I  believe  that,  with  the  advantage  of  hindsight, 
!'.  number  of  mistakes  can  be  pointed  out  in  the  handling  of  the  Amer- 
ican policy  tliat  attempted,  at  various  stages,  to  forestall,  to  avoid,  and 
finally  to  mitigate  this  catastrophe. 

It  would  be  useful  to  analvze  these  mistakes  of  the  past,  as  a  ffuide 
to  the  future,  but  it  certainly  serves  no  patriotic  purpose  to  chstort 
mistakes,  or,  more  accurately,  lack  of  success,  as  if  they  were  signs  of 


3000  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

guilt.  The  attribution  of  personal  guilt  for  the  mere  purpose  of  pro- 
viding political  scapegoats  is  not  civilized  or  democratic  behavior, 
hoAvever  widespread  it  may  be  among  primitive  groups  of  men. 

But  what  1  emphatically  do  not  believe  is  that  the  catastrophe  was 
brought  about  by  the  treachery  or  incompetence  of  those  entrusted  with 
our  foreign  policy.  By  and  large,  I  believe  that  our  China  policy  was 
handled  not  only  loyally  but  as  competently  as  could  have  been  reason- 
ably expected,  considering  the  many  forces  and  circumstances  in  the 
situation  that  were  beyond  our  control. 

I  believe  that  it  is  as  important  to  the  welfare  and  safety  of  this 
coutnry  to  have  a  strong  State  Department  and  an  able  Foreign  Serv- 
ice in  our  di])lomacy  as  it  is  to  have  effective  military  forces.  I  believe 
that  the  usefulness  of  our  Foreign  Service  personnel  has  already  been 
jeopardized  by  the  work  of  this  committee — both  directly  by  attacks  on 
irreplaceable  personnel,  and  indirectly  by  impairing  the  coufidence  of 
the  Nation  and  our  foreign  allies  in  our  State  Department  and  by  in- 
stituting a  reign  of  terror  among  our  Foreign  Service  personnel. 

First,  as  to  the  direct  injury:  It  is  a  fact  that  almost  all  the  few 
men  Avith  outstanding  experience  and  knowledge  of  China  have  al- 
ready' eitiier  been  eliminated  from  the  De]:>artment  of  State  or  are 
W'orkino-  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  in  the  hope  of  keeping  them  out 
of  the  line  of  fire  of  a  bitterly  partisan  political  fight  and  out  of  range 
of  tlie  venom  of  men  who  are  determined  to  find  evil  where  none 
exists. 

Senator  O'Conoe.  The  parties  will  kindly  desist  from  any  display 
of  approval  or  disapproval  Avhile  the  hearing  is  in  progress,  please. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  three  outstanding 

Senator  O'Conor.  Would  it  be  desirable  to  take  a  recess  at  this 
point? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  If  I  may. 

Senator  O'Conor.  We  will  take  a  recess  for  5  minutes. 

(A  brief  recess  was  here  taken.) 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  hearing  will  please  be  in  order. 

All  right,  Mr.  Witness,  will  you  proceed  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  three  outstanding  examples  of  men  sacrificed 
to  the  hj'steria  that  has  been  wdiipped  up  in  this  countt.'y  by  the  China 
lobby — a  hysteria  to  which  this  committee,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  con- 
tributing— are  John  Stewart  Service,  O.  Edmund  Clubb,  and  John 
Carter  Vincent.  Any  one  of  these  men  would  have  been  capable  of 
holding,  in  our  far-eastern  policy,  the  kind  of  respected  position  that 
is  held  with  regard  to  Russian  policy  by  George  Kennan ;  but  where 
are  they  now  ? 

John  Stewart  Service,  an  exceptionally  able  career  diplomat,  after 
being  cleared  six  times  by  the  State  Department  Loyalty  Security 
Board— and  I  believe  I  am  in  error  there ;  I  believe  it  is  more  than 
six  times — and  after  a  careful  statement  that  he  was  not  guilty  of  dis- 
loyalty, has  been  summarily  dismissed  for  "reasonable  doubt"  of  dis- 
loyalty, under  a  new  ruling. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  that  not  a  Presidential  order,  and  is  that  not 
the  v'ording  of  it? 

ISIr.  Lattimore.  As  to  "reasonable  doubt"  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  I  have  not  made  it  specific  in  my  statement 
here,  but  the  thought  in  my  mind  in  referring  to  this  is  that  whoever 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3001 

is  responsible  for  this  ruling,  it  constitutes  a  new  ruling  on  past  cases 
which  has  been  given  retroactive  force  and  conveys  to  some  members 
of  the  public,  of  whom  I  am  one,  a  flavor  of  cruel  and  unusual  punish- 
ment, the  pursuit  of  a  man  until  you  have  completely  failed  to  get  him 
under  existing  rules,  and  then  saying,  "All  right,  we  will  get  him; 
we  will  make  a  new  rule." 

Senator  Fi<:rguson.  Well,  the  President  made  the  rule;  did  he  not? 
It  is  his  Presidential  order. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  informed  in  detail  on  that,  Senator.  I 
should  consider  it  a  part  of  the  general  disastrous  and  pusillaijimous 
retreat  of  the  State  Department  under  the  bludgeoning  to  which  it  has 
been  subjected.     I  regret  it,  but  I  consider  it  a  fact. 

Senator  FERGUS0?>r.  You  charge  the  State  Department  with  cruel 
and  unusual  punishment  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir ;  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson".  Well,  is  that  not  just  exactly  what  you  said? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Is  the  Loyalty  Review  Board  a  part  of  the  State 
Department? 

Senator  Ferguson.  No  ;  it  is  part  of  the  executive  branch.  And  you 
said  it  was  because  the  State  Department  had  been  cowed  or  blud- 
geoned. 

Mr.  Latitmore.  I  am  not  an  expert,  Senator,  on  the  structure  of  the 
Federal  Government.  Perhaps  I  should  have  informed  myself  more 
carefully  on  this,  particularly  as  I  am  vitally  concerned  about  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  are  trying  to  give  this  committee  some  ad- 
vice and  opinion,  and  I  would  have  thought  you  would  have  sought 
accurate  information  before  you  would  swear  to  it,  that  we  would 
rely  upon  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  certainly  tried  to  give  this  committee  my 
opinion.  If  I  had  thought  that  this  committee  was  susceptible  to 
advice,  perhaps  I  might  have  thought  out  my  terminology  more  care- 
fully in  that  context. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  of  course,  you  know  what  we  want 
is  not  just  opinion  advice.  We  want  facts.  Now,  I  will  ask  you — 
and  I  think  perhaps  I  can  clear  this  up  and  I  can  understand  how  you 
may  not  be  familiar — you  say  here  "cleared  six  times  by  the  State 
Department  Loyalty  Security  Board." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  a  board,  as  I  understand,  composed  of  State 
Department  employee  officers  or  employees.  Now,  I  did  not  under- 
stand you  referred  to  the  President's  Loyalty  Board,  which  is  the  over- 
all Board,  which  is  a  review  board.  "Which  are  you  referring  to  in  this 
language  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  believe  I  am  correct  in  saying  that  his  summary 
dismissal  by  the  State  Department  was  mandatory  immediately  upon 
the  rendering  of  the  verdict  of  the  Loyalty  Review  Board. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  the  over-all  Board.  So  that  what  you  say 
here  was  with  reference  to  the  State  Department  Board  itself? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  am  referring  to  the  general 

Senator  Smith.  The  over-all  Loyalty  Board,  the  President's  Loyal- 
ty Review  Board  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  it  was  responsible. 

Senator  Smith.  You  understand  that  each  department  has  a  loyalty 
board,  and  then  there  is  the  President's  Loyalt}^  Review  Board  which 


3002  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

hears  appeals  from  tliese  different  departments,  which  among  others 
is  the  State  Department?  I  am  just  trying  to  get  it  clear  which  you 
had  reference  to. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  read  the  opinion  by  the  Review  Board, 
Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  read  it  at  the  time. 

Senator  Smith.  And  did  you  find  any  evidence  in  that  opinion  that 
they  were  of  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Service  had  or  had  not  given  some 
secret  papers  or  documents  to  Amerasia  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  remember  that  their  conclusion,  which  I  have 
quoted  here,  was  that  he  was  not  guilty  of  disloyalty. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  do  you  remember  the  other,  that  they  had 
found  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  he  had  delivered  secret  documents  to 
any  member  of  the  Amerasia  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  recollec  tion  of  that  differs  from  yours,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  you,  and  I  am  not  making  a  statement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  recollection  is  that  he  had  in  his  possession 
only  declassified  papers. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  they  not  mention  that  he  had  given  papers 
to  Amerasia  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  your  information  is  better  than  mine,  I  will 
accept  it.  Wliat  I  remember  is  the  conclusion  of  the  Loyalty  Re- 
view Board  that  he  was  not  disloyal. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  they  find  that  under  the  rule  that  the  Pres- 
ident had  laid  down,  that  there  was  reasonable  doubt  of  his  disloyaltj^, 
and  therefore  he  should  be  discharged  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  They  found,  they  very  carefully  stated,  that  he 
was  not  disloyal,  and  then  they  said  that  they  felt  entitled  to  consider 
him  as — what  is  it 

Senator  Smith.  A  bad  security  risk  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.    Something  about  reasonable  doubt  of  loyalty. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  are  placing 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  seems  to  me  a  shotgun  sort  of  rule,  under  which 
to  try  to  run  a  government. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  then,  your  criticism  is  of  the  Presidential 
order,  on  that  statement ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  this  connection,  my  criticism  is  of  the  entire 
policy  of  the  executive  branch,  which  I  think  has  been  brought  about 
by  a  disastrous  attempt  to  appease  the  China  lobby  and  others  attack- 
ing the  foreign  policy  of  this  country. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  O.  Edmund  Clubb,  a  political  observer  and  re- 
porter of  outstanding  conscientiousness  and  ability,  with  a  unique 
experience  combining  China,  central  Asia,  and  Russia,  was  publicly 
suspended  for  7  months,  without  pay  and  on  the  flimsiest  of  charges, 
while  his  loyalty  was  being  investigated.  After  finally  being  vindi- 
cated and  reinstated,  he  has  resigned.  He  has  taken  to  heart  the  now 
obvious  lesson  that  the  State  Department  is  not  a  safe  place  for  a  man 
who  has  been  cleared. 

Senator  Forguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  know  what  the  charges 
against  Mr.  Clubb  were? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  As  far  as  they  appeared  in  the  press,  I  had  a  gen- 
eral knowledge  of  them,  and  I  considered  them  extremely  flimsy  and 
I  have  so  stated  here. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3003 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  you  repeat  any  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattimoke.  One  was  about  going  to  the  New  Masses,  visiting 
the  New  Masses ;  and  another  one  was  about  knowing  the  late  Agnes 
Smedley. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Any  others  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  can  recall  offhand. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  describe  them  as  "the  flimsiest  of 
charges  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  consider  those  to  be  extremely  flimsy  charges  for 
questioning  the  loyalty  of  a  State  Department  man  who,  as  a  servant 
of  the  State  Department  endeavoring  to  quahfy  himself  by  knowledge 
of  factors  important  in  foreign  policy,  should  be  able  to  consider  it  a 
duty  to  know,  converse  with,  and  have  discussions  with  people  of  the 
most  varied  kind. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  have  any  discussion  or  talk  with 
Mr.  Service  after  his  discharge  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Since  his  discharge,  I  haven't  seen  him,  I  don't 
tliink. 

Senator  Ferguson.  While  matters  were  pending? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  seen  him  occasionally ;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  talk  over  what  the  charges  were  ? 

Mr.  Lattuniore.  In  a  general  way ;  yes.  I  did  not  ask  for  his  con- 
fidence, and  my  purpose  in  seeing  him  was  to  show  that  as  a  friend 
of  his,  I  was  not  going  to  be  scared  off. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  I  assume  that  you  were  not  a  witness  for 
Mr.  Service? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  was  not  a  witness. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Or  Mr.  Clubb  or  Mr.  Vincent  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Or  Mr.  Clubb  or  Mr.  Vincent. 

John  Carter  Vincent,  a  man  of  ambassadorial  seniority,  has  for 
several  years  been  removed  from  work  in  the  area  of  his  unique  spe- 
cialty— the  Far  East — and  has  been  assigned  to  North  Africa,  be- 
cause, in  the  prevailing  temper  of  the  times,  the  administration  dares 
not  return  him  to  work  where  he  belongs  and  is  needed. 

Senator  Jenner.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  have  named  three  men  here 
whom  you  think  have  been  unfairly  treated ;  that  is,  John  Stewart 
Service,  O.  Edmund  Clubb,  and  John  Carter  Vincent. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  modify  one  word  there,  Senator?  I  think 
"scandalously"  would  be  better  than  ''unfairly." 

Senator  Jenner.  I  will  accept  your  word. 

Now,  going  back  to  another  period  in  history  in  the  Far  East,  would 
you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  this  committee  what  you  thought  of  the 
way  Joseph  Grew  was  treated  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  very  little,  indeed,  about  the  resignation 
of  Mr.  Grew,  and  I  couldn't  tell  you  olfhand  by  whom  he  was  replaced. 

Senator  Jenner.  Do  you  know  anything  about  Stanley  Hornbeck, 
what  happened  to  him,  and  why  ? 

Mr.  Lattisiore.  I  have  known  Stanley  Hornbeck  for  many  years. 

Senator  Jenner.  Would  you  tell  the  conrmittee  about  his  career  in 
the  Far  East,  and  what  happened  to  it,  and  why  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  understood  that  he  served  the  last  assignment  as 
Ambassador  to  the  Netherlands,  and  then  retired  in  the  ordinary 
course. 

Senator  Jenner.  And  Mr.  Dooman  ? 


3004  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  very  slightly. 

Senator  Jenner.  Could  you  tell  us  anything  about  his  career? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  anything  about  his  career. 
Senator  Jenner.  Or  Patrick  Hurley,  or  his  experience  in  the  Far 

East? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  what  I  have  read  in  the  press. 
Senator  Jenner.  Lieutenant  General  Wedemeyer  ? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  what  I  have  heard  in  the  press. 
Senator  Jenner.  Adolph  Berle  ?  _ 
Mr.  Lattimore.  Practically  nothing. 

Senator  Jenner.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  these  men,  too,  were  either 
removed  from  ofSce  or  assigned  to  diplomatic  posts  or  military  posts 
of  no  importance  because  they  did  not  go  along  with  the  policy  of  the 
State  Department  in  the  Far  East  ?     Is  that  not  true  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  about  the  details  of  reassignment  or 
retirement  of  any  of  these  men,  Senator. 

Senator  Jenner.  Well,  you  have  made  a  reference  here  about 
"attacks  on  irreplaceable  personnel."  Now,  these  men  that  I  have 
named  were  all  rej^laced,  and  do  you  know  who  replaced  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  can  you  inform  nie  whether  any  of  the 
men  that  you  have  just  mentioned  were  ever  pilloried  for  months  on 
end  in  the  press  as  Communists,  or  Communist  stooges,  or  agents  of 

the  policy  of  a  foreign 

Senator  Jenner.  No.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  just  the  oppo- 
site. They  were  anti- Communist,  and  then  walked  the  plank  be- 
cause they  were,  and  that  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at.  You  are 
supposed  to  be  an  expert  on  this  situation,  and  I  assumed  that  you 
knew  about  all  of  these  facts. 

Now,  would  you  tell  me  what  you  mean  by  "irreplaceable  personnel," 
"both  directly  by  attacks  on  irreplaceable  personnel"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  personnel  like  Vincent,  Service,  and 
Clubb  are  very  difficult  to  replace. 

Senator  Jenner.  Would  you  say  that  Joseph  Grew  and  Stanley 
Hornbeck  and  Adolph  Berle  and  Patrick  Hurley  and  Lt.  Gen.  Albert 
Wedemeyer  would  be  hard  to  replace  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  enough  about  the  details  of  their 
qualifications  to  have  an  opinion.  Senator. 

Senator  Jenner.  Well,  I  think  another  thing  should  be  brought 
out  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  question  of  reasonable  doubt,  this  new 
rule  that  the  witness  says  he  does  not  care  for. 

Reasonable  doubt;  "has  been  summarily  dismissed  for  'reason- 
able doubt'  of  disloyalty,  under  a  new  ruling." 

Are  you.  trying  to  tell  this  committee  that  if  there  is  a  reasonable 
doubt  about  a  man  being  loyal  to  this  country,  that  he  should  remain 
in  the  office  of  public  trust  and  handling  secret  papers,  and  so  forth  ? 
If  there  is  a  reasonable  doubt  about  it,  do  you  believe  he  should  be 
retained  in  that  kind  of  a  position  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.   Senator,  I  believe  that  the  question  of  loyalty  in 
our  Government  service  is  of  paramount  importance. 
Senator  Jenner.  I  noticed  you  stated  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  of  such  importance  that  I  think  it  should  be 
handled  strictly  on  grounds  of  proof  or  disproof;  that  vague  words 
like  "reasonable  doubt,"  which  may  mean  one  thing  to  one  man  and 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3005 

something  else  to  somebody  else,  are  not  the  words  of  a  ruling  under 
which  a  high  morale  can  be  maintained  in  the  Department. 

May  I  read,  Senator,  something  of  what  I  mean  here,  and  it  is  an 
editorial  from  the  American  Foreign  Service  Journal  of  August  1951. 
This  generally  represents  the  point  of  view  of  the  Foreign  Service 
men  in  the  Department  of  State.     I  quote : 

Another  direct  cost  of  this  baiting  is  the  toll  it  takes  among  members  of  the 
coming  generation,  who  have  talents  and  capabilities  to  contribute  in  the  future 
formulation  of  a  wise  foreign  policy  for  our  country,  but  who  are  frightened 
away  by  the  sort  of  hatchet  work  which  seems  on  the  way  to  becoming  accepted 
as  commonplace.  In  1949,  there  were  1,128  candidates  who  took  the  foreign 
service  examination ;  and  in  1950,  candidates  numbered  807.     This  year — 

that  is,  1951— 

despite  extra  solicitation,  only  760.  The  draft,  competitive  job  opportunities 
in  a  booming  economy,  and  administrative  problems  of  enlarging  the  service 
were  partly  responsible.  Nevertheless,  this  change,  which  was  made  the  subject 
of  methodical  inquiry,  clearly  demonstrated  that  regardless  of  interest  in  or 
qualification  for  the  field  of  foreign  affairs,  young  people  simply  do  not  see  any 
valid  reason  why  they  they  should  put  their  persons,  careers,  and  reputations  in 
potential  jeopardy  by  joining  the  State  Department. 

Mr.  SouKWiNE.  Do  you  know  who  wrote  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  "no  idea. 

Mr.  SoLTRwiNE.  Do  you  know  John  K.  Emerson  is  one  of  the  editors 
of  the  publication  from  which  you  have  just  read ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't  know  that. 

Mi\  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  think  that  he  might  have  written  that 
article  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  I  inquire  whether  it  is  a  State  Depart- 
ment magazine? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  what  its  connection  with  the  State 
Department  is. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  I  see  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  it  is  generally  considered  the  fraternity 
journal  of  the  Foreign  Service  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  do  not  know  at  what  expense  it  is  being 
published  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Or  at  whose  expense? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Jenner.  I  come  back  to  this  same  question,  and  I  do  not 
know  whether  the  witness  answered  it  or  not :  You  deplore  these  men 
being  attacked  and  you  call  them  irreplaceable  men,  and  I  am  going 
to  ask  you  if  a  man  was  anti-Communist,  such  as  Joseph  Grew,  Stan- 
ley Hornbeck,  Mr.  Dooman,  Patrick  Hurley,  Lieutenant  General 
Wedemeyer,  you  would  also  abhor  replacing  those  irreplaceable  men, 
too,  would  you  not,  because  they  were  anti-Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  have  no  idea  of  the  grounds  upon  which 
any  of  those  men  resigned  or  were  replaced. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  are  not  acquainted  with  these  men  and  their 
careers  and  their  position  on  the  Far  East  and  you  are  a  far-eastern 
expert  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Some  of  them  I  have  met  very  slightly,  and  you 
have  mentioned  several  who  are  concerned  primarily  with  Japan, 
which  is  not  my  field  of  specialization,  and  the  assertion  that  they 

88348— 52— pt.  9—^8 


3006  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

■were  fired  because  they  were  anti-Communists  is  your  assertion,  Sena- 
tor, and  I  never  knew  that  before. 

Senator  Jenner.  All  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  it  is  a  fact  that  at  the  time  Mr. 
Grew  and  at  least  some  of  these  other  men  were  fired,  we  did  not  have 
the  same  situation  in  the  Far  East  with  respect  to  the  Communists 
being  in  dominant  control  that  we  have  today  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  presume  you  are  right.  This  was  some  years  ago, 
wasn't  it? 

Senator  Smith.  Yes.  So  that  since  these  men  who  were  known  as 
anti-Communists  were  relieved  of  their  duties  and  their  positions  com- 
munism has  made  great  advances  in  the  Far  East  ? 

Senator  Jenner.  That  is  why  they  were  removed. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  just  asking  for  the  facts. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Is  your  argument.  Senator,  a  post  hoc,  ergo  propter 
hoc? 

Senator  Smith.  I  believe  you  said  you  did  not  want  to  indulge 
in  legal  or  technical  language,  so  I  am  asking  you  in  plain  language 
if,  after  these  men  were  removed,  it  is  not  a  fact  that  there  have  been 
great  advances  by  communism  in  the  Far  East? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  Of  course,  the  advances  of  communism  since 
the  death  of  Julius  Caesar  have  been  even  greater. 

Senator  Smith.  And  that  is  the  relation  that  j^ou  think,  or  the 
attitude  that  you  think  you  ought  to  have  in  discussing  a  current 
matter  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  we  have  an  answer,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  confess.  Senator,  I  see  no  connection  between  the 
points  you  are  making. 

Senator  Smith.  But  the  fact  remains  the  same,  that  we  did  have  a 
great  many  millions  of  friends  who  were  anti-Communist  in  the  Far 
East,  but  sometime  after  these  men,  as  Senator  Jenner  refeiTed  to, 
were  released,  then  some  kind  of  influence  got  in  there  by  which  today 
we  do  not  have  the  same  number  of  friends  and  that  section  of  the 
world  has  gone  Communist ;  and  you  say  that  there  is  no  connection, 
in  your  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  A  large  part  of  the  Far  East  has  gone  Communist. 
I  don't  know  exactly  how  to  take  your  expression  that  we  had  many 
millions  of  friends  there.  A  question  would  arise  there  of  how  far 
they  were  actually  friends,  and  how  far  they  might  have  become 
friends  or  stronger  friends  under  a  different  policy,  and  the  question 
of  whether  they  were  merely  sitting  on  the  sidelines  and  waiting  for 
things  to  happen,  and  so  forth. 

Senator  Smith.  There  was  a  change  in  our  policy  in  the  Far  East, 
was  there  not,  after  Mr.  Grew  and  these  others  who  have  been  men- 
tioned were  relieved  of  their  duties  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  could  point  to  any  change  in 
our  policy.  Senator,  that  could  be  accurately  coordinated  with  the 
service  of  these  particular  men. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  Mr.  Davies  when  he  was  in  the 
Far  East,  John  K.  Davies? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  John  P.  Davies,  and  I  knew  him,  not  very  well, 
but  I  knew  him. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  have  not  used  his  name  here.  Is  there  any 
reason  ?    You  have  named  three,  but  you  did  not  name  Mr.  Davies. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3007 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  named  these  three  particularly  because  I  know 
them  better,  but  I  would  include  Mr.  Davies  among  those  who  have 
been  sent  to  hide  out  in  non-far  eastern  countries  by  the  State  De- 
partment, presumably  hoping  they  will  be  there  safe  from  snipers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  hear  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Munson,  a 
former  CIA  agent? 

Mr.  Lait^imore.  Xo,  I  didn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  do  not  know  what  the  testimony  might 
be  in  the  hearing  here  about  Mr.  Davies  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  saw  some  reference  to  it  in  the  newspapers,  but 
that  part  of  the  transcript  of  this  committee's  proceedings  had  not 
become  available  when  this  was  written. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  read  it  in  the  newspapers? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  read  it  in  the  newspapers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  after  reading  that,  would  you  say  that  you 
would  still  include  him  as  one  of  these  persons  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  also  read  a  statement • 

Senator  Ferguson.  Answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Excuse  me;  I  am  answering  it.  Senator.  I  also 
read  a  statement  in  the  newspapers  from  Mr.  Davies,  something  to 
the  effect  that  the  whole  matter  had  been  taken  up  previously  and 
cleared  in  the  hearings,  or  something  of  that  sort. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  then  you  placed  your  reliance  on  his  state- 
ment, and  not  on  what  the  CIA  man  had  testified  to  under  oath  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  in  no  position  to  place  my  reliance  on  either 
statement.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  you  are  including  him  now  as  one  of  those 
that  you  think  have  been  unjustly  discharged  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  accusations  had  not  been  made  when  Mr. 
Davies  was  sent  to  Germany,  or  when  I  wrote  this  statement. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  asking  you  as  of  today. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  of  today,  I  have  no  opinion. 

Senator  Jenner.  Referring  to  your  statement  here : 

But  much  more  important  is  the  damage  that  has  been  done  to  my  country, 
the  country  of  which  I  am  only  one  private  citizen,  and  the  damage  that  has 
been  done  to  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  policy  of  our  country. 

Now,  I  will  ask  you,  could  you  possibly  conjure  a  set  of  facts  where 
our  foreign  policy  could  have  been  more  mishandled,  from  Yalta  down 
to  the  present  time,  in  the  Far  East?  You  are  a  student  of  this,  sir, 
and  it  is  a  fact  that  at  Yalta  we  gave  Manchuria  to  Russia  and  the 
northern  half  of  Korea,  and  the  Sakhalin  and  Kurile  Islands;  and 
it  is  the  fact  that  we  sent  General  Marshall  to  China  with  the  specific 
mission  to  force  Chiang  Kai-shek  to  take  the  Coimnunists  into  his 
government  and  into  his  army  and  to  have  a  united-front  government ; 
and  it  is  the  fact  that  when  AVorld  War  II  ended,  there  was  only  about 
175  million  Communists.  And  as  a  result  of  Yalta,  and  confirmed 
at  Potsdam,  and  the  Marshall  mission,  and  the  replacing  of  these 
loyal  Americans  who  were  anti-Communists  in  the  Far  East  with  men 
who  were  following,  I  will  say,  at  least  the  pro-Communist  line,  could 
you  think  of  any  more  damage  that  your  country  has  suffered  than 
that?  [ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  am  afraid  that  I  can  agree  with  hardly 
a  word  that  you  have  said. 


3008  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Jenner.  You  think  our  policy  in  the  Far  East  has  been 
successful  ? 

Mr.  Latttmore.  I  think  that  our  policy,  or  I  think  that  our  interests 
in  the  Far  East  have  suffered  extremely  serious  setbacks,  and  I  do  not 
believe  that  those  setbacks  were  a  consequence  of  our  policy. 

Senator  Jenner.  That  was  our  policy,  was  it  not :  Yalta,  the  Mar- 
shall mission,  replacing  these  men  who  were  fighting  the  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  you  have  made  a  chracterization  of  Yalta 
and  of  General  Marshall's  mission  with  which,  I  am  sorry,  but  I  don't 
agree. 

Senator  Jenner.  I  think  that  that  is  the  whole  crux  of  it.  That 
has  been  our  policy ;  and  if  it  has  been  successful,  you  think  it  has 
been  successful.     Certainly  I  do  not  think  it  has  been  successful. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  like  to  read  you  the  words.  Senator,  of 
somebody  who  has  expressed  this  problem  better  than  I 

Senator  Jenner.  I  do  not  care  to  hear  someone  else's  words.  I 
want  your  words  on  it,  and  you  stated  that  the  policy  has  been  suc- 
cessful. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think  we  can  settle  this  very  well. 

Senator  Jenner.  He  has  answered  my  question,  and  I  do  not  care 
for  a  dissertation  on  the  speech 

Senator  O'Conor.  If  Mr.  Lattimore  wishes  to  adopt  the  language 
used  by  someone  else,  it  is  perfectly  permissible  for  him  to  read  it. 

Senator  Jenner.  He  said  he  thought  it  had  been  a  successful  policy. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  thought  he  wanted  to  elaborate  on  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  want  the  reporter  to  read  back  and  see  if  I  said 
anywhere  that  we  had  a  successful  policy. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  say  that,  or  not  ? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  Certainly  not. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  did  understand  that  you  wished  to  elaborate 
somewhat. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  from  Mr.  George  F.  Keenan,  our  newly 
appointed  and  confirmed  Ambassador  to  Russia,  in  his  recent  book, 
American  Democracy — 1900-50 : 

It  is  similarly  incorrect  to  portray  the  Yalta  Agreement  as  a  terrible  betrayal 
of  Nationalist  China.  The  agreement  was  that  we  should  recommend  certain 
things  to  the  Chinese  Government.  The  leaders  of  that  Government  were  not 
averse  to  these  things  at  the  time.  They  had  asked  us  long  before  Yalta  to 
help  them  to  arrange  their  affairs  with  the  Soviet  Government.  They  later 
expressed  themselves  as  well  satisfied  with  what  we  had  done.  And  in  the 
subsequent  negotiations,  which  they  themselves  conducted  independently  with 
the  Russians,  and  which  actually  constituted  the  controlling  arrangement  for 
the  future  of  Manchuria,  they  went  in  some  respects  further  in  the  way  of 
concessions  to  the  Soviet  Union  than  anything  that  had  been  agreed  upon  at 
Yalta  and  recommended  to  them  by  us.  They  did  this  despite  the  fact  that 
they  were  warned  by  us  that  in  doing  so  they  were  acting  on  their  own  responsi- 
bility and  not  at  our  recommendation. 

I  should  like  to  add  a  point,  and  this  I  quote  from  the  Reporter 
magazine,  the  issue  of  February  19,  1952 : 

"In  the  treaty"— 

and  this  is  the  treaty  between  the  Chinese  and  Russia  direct — 

"the  Chinese  Nationalists,  who  seemed  eager  to  coiirt  Soviet  freindship" — 

and  this  is  the  Chinese  Nationalists  who  were  eager  to  court  Soviet 
friendship — 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3009 

"made  concession  which  went  beyond  the  provisions  of  the  Yalta  Agreement, 
and  were  prevented  from  going  even  further  only  by  the  persuasion  of  Averell 
Harriman,  who  was  then  United  States  Ambassador  to  the  Soviet  Union.  Am- 
bassador Pat  Hurley  reported  that  Chiang  Kai-shek  was  generally  satisfied 
with  the  treaty,  and  thanked  me" — 

that  is,  thanked  General  Hurley — 

"for  the  basis  that  I  had  helped  him  to  lay  for  reapproachment  with  the  Soviets." 
Madam  Chiang,  then  in  the  United  States,  called  on  President  Truman  to 
compliment  him  on  the  result  of  the  conversations  between  the  Nationalists  and 
the  Soviet  representatives,  and  thank  him  for  the  United  States  help  in  bring- 
ing them  about. 

Life  magazine  as  of  that  time,  which  seems  to  have  changed  its  mind, 
hailed  the  treaty  as  "as  great  a  victory  for  common  sense  as  the  defeat  of  Japan 
was  for  armed  might"  and  indicated  that  it  was  "a  vindication  of  American 
policy  in  Asia  for  almost  50  years." 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  know  who  wrote  that,  Mr.  Lattimore? 
Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

It  forecast  a  warm  brotherly  collaboration  between  Chiang  and  Mao  Tze-tung. 

Frome  Life  magazine :  "Peace,  lively  but  genuine  peace,"  they  cried, 
"is  therefore  the  outlook." 

Senator  Jenner.  Do  you  know  who  wrote  that  ? 

Mr.  Lati^imore.  No,  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  adopting  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  adopting  it  as  far  as  it  is  an  accurate  quota- 
tion of  the  people  who  are  quoted,  the 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  adopting  it  as  being  the  correct  view  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  adopting  it  insofar  as  it  may  quote  correctly 
from  the  people  from  whom  it  quotes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  not  answering  my  question  at  all. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  as  far  as  I  can  answer  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  can  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  think  if  you  will  clarify  what  you  mean  by  "adop- 
tion"  

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  adopting  it  as  your  testimony,  or  are 
you  only  quoting  somebody  else  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  quoting  from  original  sources  which  have 
been  cited  in  a  secondarj^  source,  which  I  have  not  yet  had  time  to 
verify  or  check.  If  the  quotations  are  accurate,  I  am  willing  to 
present  it  as  my  testimony  that  they  are  accurate. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  I  am  not  asking  you  that.  That  was  not 
my  question  at  all.  Do  you  agree  with  what  is  said  in  the  articles 
or  the  matter  that  you  have  just  read  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  agree  that  that  was  said. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  ask  you  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  the  time  it  was  said. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  ask  you  that,  whether  you  agreed  it 
was  said.     I  asked  you  whether  you  agreed  with  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  agree,  or  automatically  agree,  on  the  cor- 
rectness in  1952  of  things  that  were  said  in  1949. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Why  did  you  put  it  in  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  the  Senator  here  had  made  a  statement 
implying  that  everything  that  had  been  done  in  American  foreign 
policy  in  those  years  was  the  work  of  American  traitors. 


3010  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  He  did  not  indicate  and  ask  you  to  bring  out 
evidence  of  what  somebodj'  else  said,  did  he  ?  He  was  asking  for  your 
opinion. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  impression  is,  Senator,  that  he  was  making  a 
rhetorical  statement,  at  the  end  of  which  he  asked  for  my  agreement, 
yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes;  your  agreement,  and  not  someone  else's 
agreement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  told  him  I  couldn't  agree,  and  then  I  produced 
this  evidence  from  the  period  as  an  indication  of  why  I  couldn't  agree. 

Senator  Jenner.  Could  we  get  the  record  straight?  It  started  like 
this :  I  was  reading  from  the  statement  of  Professor  Lattimore — 

But  much  more  important  is  the  damage  that  has  been  done  to  my  country, 
the  country  of  which  I  am  only  one  private  citizen,  and  the  damage  that  has  been 
done  to  the  conduct  of  the  foreign  policy  of  our  country. 

And  I  asked  the  witness  if  he  could  think  of  any  greater  damage  that 
could  be  brought  about  as  a  result  of  our  policy,  and  that  is  how  the 
question  started. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  where  we  disagree,  you  see.  I  don't  think 
it  was  brought  about  by  our  policy. 

Senator  Jenner.  That  is  all  I  want.  That  was  an  answer  to  my 
question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  are  entitled  to  your  opinion. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  are  quoting  people,  and  you  do  not  know  who 
they  are,  and  you  referred  to  a  treaty  in  this  quotation  that  you  just 
read,  and  that  was  the  treaty  between  China  and  Russia? 

JVIr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Jenner.  When  was  that  treaty  entered  into  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Let  me  see,  the  Yalta  agreement  was  in  February 
of  1945,  and  was  followed  within  a  few  months,  I  think,  by  a  direct 
Chinese  Nationalist  Treaty  with  Russia. 

Senator  Jenner.  In  other  words,  the  treaty  you  are  reading  from 
followed  the  Yalta  agreement.  Now  I  will  ask  you :  Was  Chiang  Kai- 
shek  or  the  Chinese  Government  represented  at  the  Yalta  agreement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Jenner.  And  if  you  were  the  leader  of  a  country  and  you 
had  been  "sold  down  the  river,"  would  you  not  begin  fighting  for  your 
life,  and  do  you  suppose  that  had  anything  to  do  with  this  treaty  that 
you  have  been  reading  about,  as  to  which  you  do  not  know  who 
wrote  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  have  just  quoted  from  George  Keenan, 
who  was  in  the  State  Department 

Senator  Jenner.  I  remember  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Handling  these  affaiis,  Avhich  I  was  not,  and  there- 
fore better  informed  on  the  subjects  than  I  am,  stating  presumabl}^  as 
authoritatively  as  it  can  be  stated  that  before  Yalta,  Chiang  Kai-shek 
had  asked  us  to  undertake  these  conversations. 

Senator  Jenner.  Was  Chiang  consulted  about  Yalta  and  the  agree- 
ments reached  at  Yalta? 

Mr.  Larrimore.  ]\Iy  understanding  is  that  Chiang  asked  us  to  under- 
take discussions  with  the  Russians,  which  led  up  to  what  was  decided 
at  Yalta. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3011 

Senator  Jenner.  And  he  was  not  at  Yalta,  and  lie  was  not  consulted 
about  the  future  interests  of  his  country,  and  he  was  one  of  our  allies, 
was  he  not.  Professor  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  the  evidence  that  I  have  just  read  is  a 
clear  indication  that  he  was  not  only  consulted,  but  that  he  was  con- 
sulted at  his  own  initiative,  and  consulted  before  Yalta. 

Senator  Smith.  Was  there  not  a  refusal  to  him  to  have  him  present 
at  Yalta? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  memory  of  that.  Senator,  is  somewhat  hazy, 
and  T  think  it  could  be  looked  "up  in  the  white  book  that  there  was  an 
agreement  between  the  Americans  and  the  British  before  going  to 
Yalta,  not  involving  the  Eussians  at  all  but  an  American-British  agree- 
ment, that  in  view  of  the  proved  leaking  security  of  Chungking, 
where  top  secrets  were  steadily  being  reported  to  the  Japanese,  it  was 
unadvisable  to  have  a  Chinese  Nationalist  representative  at  a  confer- 
ence where  we  hoped,  as  the  outcome,  to  get  the  consent  of  Russia  to 
enter  the  far  eastern  war  against  Japan,  because  if  that  had  leaked 
to  Japan  through  Chungking,  it  would  have  been  a  disaster. 

Senator  Jexxer.  And  at  that  time,  that  particular  time,  is  it  not 
correct  that  the  military  leaders  were  telling  us  that  Japan  was  a 
defeated  nation ;  and  that  we  entered  into  an  agreement  with  Eussia, 
unbeknownst  to  Chiang  Kai-shek,  to  equip  an  army,  a  Siberian  Rus- 
sian Army  of  1,250,000  Russian  soldiers,  to  fight  with  us  6  days  in  a 
war  against  Japan?    Is  tliat  correct,  sir? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  it  is,  Senator. 

Senator  Jexner.  All  right. 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  the  record  shows  that  the  pressure  at 
Yalta  to  accept  anything  that  the  Russians  might  demand  as  a  condi- 
tion for  entering  the  war  against  Japan,  came  primarily  from  the 
armed  services. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  there  were  efforts  made  by  at  least  someone  in 
the  American  forces  to  keep  the  Yalta  agreement  from  being  entered 
into,  with  respect  to  Eussia  coming  to  war  for  that  short  f)eriod  of 
time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  1  have  read  something  about  an  effort  on 
the  part  of  some  group  within  the  Armed  Forces  to  change  that 
decision. 

Senator  Smith.  Was  INIr.  Keenan  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  Yalta  ?    I  believe  he  was,  but  I  am  not  sure. 

Senator  Smith.  Who  was  the  main  man  representing  the  State  De- 
partment at  Yalta?    Was  it  not  Mr.  x\lger  Hiss? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir,  I  believe  Mr.  Hiss  had  a  rather  subordinate 
position  at  Yalta,  and  if  Mr.  Keenan  was  there  he  certainly  far  out- 
ranked Hiss. 

Senator  Smith.  But  you  do  not  know  whether  Keenan  was  there, 
and  you  do  not  know  if  he  was  there  ? 

MV.  Lattimore.  No.    Let  me  see,  I  think  Stettinius  was  there. 

Senator  Smith.  But  Hiss  was  the  confidential  man  dealing  with 
Stettinius  and  the  President  at  Yalta  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  how  confidential  the  position  held  by 
Hiss  was.  Senator  Smith.  My  understanding  is  that  at  that  time  his 
position  in  the  Department  of  State  was  rather  low. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  there  is  no  doubt  but  what  Yalta  sealed  the 
doom  of  Nationalist  China,  did  it  not  ? 


3012  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  question  that  very  much,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  You  think  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  say  that  on  the  contrary,  as  far  as  the 
direct  effects  of  Yalta  reached,  they  favored  the  early  entry  of  Chiang 
Kai-shek's  troops  into  Manchuria. 

Senator  Smith.  In  any  event,  after  the  Yalta  Agreement,  the  Na- 
tionalist cause  got  continuously  worse,  did  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  it  didn't  get  continuously  worse,  Senator.  In 
the  first  period  after  the  surrender  of  Japan,  there  was  a  steadily 
increasing  expansion  of  the  territory  occupied,  military  power,  and 
military  authority  of  the  Nationalist  Government,  and  the  decline 
came  after  that  expansion. 

Senator  Smith.  How  long  after  that  expansion  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  let  me  see.  I  think  it  began,  the  decline 
began — I  am  not  sure  of  my  memory  here,  and  I  would  have  to  look 
up  the  record — but  I  believe  toward  the  end  of  1948,  and  I  do  recall 
that  General  Wedemeyer,  who  has  been  cited  here,  attributed  the 
weakening  of  the  position  of  Chiang  Kai-shek  partly  to  unwise  mili- 
tary overexpansion,  against  which  Wedemeyer  himself  advised,  but  in 
vain. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  would  not  agree.  Professor,  that  the  decline 
of  Nationalist  China  started  after  General  Marshall  went  over  and 
we  talked  with  the  Communist  troops  and  tried  to  get  them  into  a 
united-front  government;  and  failing  that,  for  the  next  15  months 
after  Marshall  returned  from  his  mission  we  did  not  give  Chiang  any 
aid,  although  the  money  was  appropriated  for  it.  And  you  would  not 
mark  that  as  the  beginning  of  the  decline  of  Nationalist  China? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  would  not  agree  that  the  decline  of 
Nationalist  China  came  because  of  General  Marshall's  mission. 

Senator  Jenner.  As  a  result  of  the  mission. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Or  as  a  result  of  the  mission. 

Senator  Jenner.  All  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  hear  the  testimony  of  Admiral  Cooke  be- 
fore this  committee,  about  how  he  sat  there  in  command  of  the  United 
States  naval  forces  in  Chinese  waters  and  saw  this  disintegration  of 
the  Nationalist  forces  brought  about  by  the  policy  that  we  had  then 
adopted?    I  am  just  asking  you  if  you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  read  that  testimony,  and  I  was  struck  by  the  fact 
that  nobody  asked  Admiral  Cooke  whether,  in  his  present  activities, 
he  draws  any  financial  advantage  from  operations  associated  with 
Chiang  Kai-shek. 

Senator  Smith.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  Do  you  want  to  ask 
him  that  question  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  Admiral  Cooke  is  associated  with  a 
corporation  of  some  kind  doing  business  on  Formosa,  partly  in  mili- 
tary supplies. 

Senator  Smith.  You  think  that  influences  his  activities  back  there, 
or  his  judgment  back  there ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  it  is  a  question,  at  least  in  view  of  the 
kind  of  questions  that  have  been  asked  of  me  before  this  committee, 
that  it  would  have  been  a  proper  question  to  have  asked  of  Admiral 
Cooke. 

Senator  Smith.  Is  anybody  questioning  what  you  are  doing  now, 
and  how  you  are  earning  your  living  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3013 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  entire  assault  upon  me  by 
this  committee  or  its  counsel — and  I  don't  know  where  the  responsi- 
bility is  distributed — is  predicated  on  a  prejudgment  that  I  am  a  man 
of  bad  faith. 

Senator  Smith.  I  was  asking  you  about  Admiral  Cooke's  testimony, 
and  you  read  it  and  you  know  what  he  said,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  it  is  a  usual  procedure,  when  people 
are  questioned  about  problems  of  this  kind,  to  determine  whether  they 
are  or  are  not  interested  parties. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  have  any  doubt  as  to  the  patriotism  and 
loyalty  of  Admiral  Cooke  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  never  met  Admiral  Cooke,  and  I  am  merely 
saying  that  a  question  of  that  kind  would  have  been  proper,  in  my 
opinion. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  think  that  you  are  helping  your  position, 
sir,  by  attacking  the  honor  of  Admiral  Cooke  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  am  not  attacking  the  honor  of 
Admiral  Cooke.  I  am  making  some  comments  on  the  procedure  of  this 
committee. 

Senator  O'Conor.  It  is  very  evident  that  we  will  not  be  able  to  con- 
clude, and  I  thought  that  we  would  get  to  a  natural  breaking  point. 

Senator  Ferguson.  May  I  just  ask  one  question?  Did  you  know 
that  Mr,  Hiss,  Alger  Hiss,  testified  before  the  Un-American  Activities 
Committee  that  he  was  proud  to  be  closely  connected  with  the  Yalta 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  didn't  know  that,  Senator. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Before  the  record  closes,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think 
this  comment  should  be  made  at  this  point :  that  at  the  beginning  of 
Admiral  Cooke's  testimony,  he  was  asked  about  liis  present  connec- 
tions, and  his  present  business,  and  he  testified  with  regard  to  it. 

Senator  Smith.  I  wonder  if  the  witness  would  like  to  reiterate  his 
statement  that  Admiral  Cooke  was  not  asked  about  it  or  did  not  tell  us 
about  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  was  not  asked  if  he  drew  any  financial  ad- 
vantage from  it. 

Senator  Smith.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  You  mean  you  are 
charging  Admiral  Cooke  with  converting  or  embezzling  Government 
property  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Just  what  do  you  mean  by  "financial  advantage"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  simply  raising  the  question  of  the  value  of 
showing  in  discussions  of  this  kind  whether  a  man  may  or  may  not 
be  an  interested  party  in  the  opinions  which  he  expresses.*^ 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  read  the  testimony,  just  a  half  a  page  here, 
at  the  outset  of  Admiral  Cooke's  testimony  ?     He  was  asked : 

Will  you  give  your  full  name  and  residence  to  the  reporter? 

And  he  said : 

Charles  Maynard  Cooke.  My  permanent  residence  is  in  Sonoma,  Calif.  The 
last  2  years  I  have  been  living  in  Formosa. 

Question.  What  is  your  present  military  status,  Admiral  Cooke? 

Answer.  I  am  a  retired  admiral,  United  States  Navy. 

Question.  When  did  you  retire  from  the  United  States  Navy? 

Answer.  The  1st  of  May  1498. 

Question.  Admiral  Cooke,  will  you  tell  us  what  your  present  occupation  is? 


3014  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Answer.  My  present  occupation  is  that  I  have  just  terminated  a  tour  of  serv- 
ice as  an  employee  of  the  Commerce  International-China,  which  has  been  fur- 
nishing technical  services  to  the  Chinese  in  Formosa. 

Question.  Is  that  an  American  corporation,  Admiral  Cooke? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question.  What  was  your  position  with  that  corporation? 

Answer.  I  occupied  a  position  of  coordinator  of  this  group  of  technicians  that 
served  in  Formosa. 

Question.  Who  were  those  technicians,  Admiral  Cooke? 

Answer.  They  were  some  retired  officers,  some  Reserve  oflficers,  some  ex- 
officers  of  the  services  of  the  United  States,  and  some  enlisted  men,  too. 

Question.  They  are  all  United  States  citizens? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question.  They  were  all  employees  of  Commerce  International-China? 

Answer.  Yes  ;  CIC,  as  it  is  referred  to. 

Question.  Admiral  Cooke,  have  you  ever  been  in  the  employ  of  the  Chinese 
Government? 

Answer.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  Dr.  Lattimore,  you  are  willing,  after  your 
criticism  of  the  committee,  you  are  willing  to  sit  here  and  impugn  the 
motives  and  blacken  the  character  of  a  retired  naval  officer,  against 
whom  you  know  nothing? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  impugning  Admiral  Cooke's  character. 

Senator  Smith.  What  did  j^ou  mean  when  you  interjected  what 
you  did  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  merely  pointing  out  that  when  this  com- 
mittee has  before  it  myself  or  Mr.  Holland,  or  Mr.  Carter,  or  Mr. 
Vincent,  the  record  shows  that  we  are  asked  the  most  searching  and 
probing  questions  of  every  kind;  and  that  no  witness  who  has  been 
brought  before  this  committee  making  charges  of  the  disloyalty  of  in- 
divicUtals  or  the  incompetence  of  American  foreign  policy,  has  been 
asked  any  questions  of  an  even  remotely  comparable  kind. 

I  wish  to  add  specifically  that  I  am  not  impugning  the  motives  or 
the  character  of  Admiral  Cooke. 

Senator  Smith.  Will  you  answer  this  question  ?  Why  did  you  say 
what  you  did  about  Admiral  Cooke  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  I  thought  that  it  was  pertinent  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  procedure  of  this  committee. 

Senator  Smith.  What  did  that  have  to  do,  whether  or  not  Admiral 
Cooke  had  been  employed  by  these  other  people,  what  did  that  have  to 
do  with  the  procedure  before  this  committee,  unless  you  meant  to 
impeach  him  and  his  character? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  not  mean  to  impeach  him  or  his  character. 
Senator.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that,  I  believe,  a  man's  judgment  may 
be  unconsciously  affected  by  the  point  where  his  personal  interest  or 
advantage  lies. 

Mr.  1^'oRTAS.  May  I  respectfully  suggest  this  witness  has  been  on 
the  stand  about  2  hours  and  25  minutes,  with  just  a  5-minute  break? 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  was  undertaking  to  make  a  comment  on  that 
very  point.  We  have  been  advised  that  the  Senate  is  about  to  vote 
on  a  very  important  issue.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  tliere  may  be  a  series 
of  votes,  and  it  appears  impossible  for  us  to  continue  at  this  point. 
I  was  going  to  ask  my  colleagues,  and  of  course  counsel,  as  to  their 
convenience  in  returning. 

May  I  ask,  in  view  of  all  of  the  developments,  do  you  consider  that 
it  would  be  proper  to  put  in  the  record  the  entire  statement  at  this 


IXSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3015 

time,  and  consider  it  as  having  been  submitted  and  incorporated  in 
the  record  in  toto? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  It  is  Mr.  Lattimore's  judgment;  but  since  you  have 
asked  me,  it  seems  to  me  that  your  ruling  allowing  him  to  read  seg- 
ments of  it  is  a  very  wise  one. 

Senator  O'Conor.  It  has  not  progressed  as  far  as  I  thought  it 
might. 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  I  think  we  have  made  pretty  good  progress,  and  if 
Mr.  Lattimore  asked  me  my  opinion,  I  would  suggest  that  we  continue 
on  that  basis;  and  it  is  his  decision. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  already  tried  to  make  the  suggestion  to 
you  that  we  should  continue  on  the  same  basis. 

Senator  O'Conor.  All  right.  I  thought  that  I  would  make  possible 
the  introduction  of  the  entire  statement,  which  of  course  is  already 
a  matter  of  public  knowledge,  anyhow,  because  it  has  been  distributed, 
and  I  thought  it  might  just  expedite  the  questioning.  But  if  you  feel 
that  it  is  necessary  to  do  it  this  way,  we  will  do  so. 

We  will  recess  until  tomorrow  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  4 :  30  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed  until  10  a.  m., 
Thursday,  February  28,  1952.) 


INSTITUTE  OF  PACIFIC  EELATIONS 


THURSDAY,  FEBRUAEY  28,   1952 

United  States  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the 
Administration  of  the  Internal  Security 

Act  and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws, 

of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washing,ton,  D.  G. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10 :  10  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  recess,  in  room 
424  of  the  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Herbert  R.  O'Conor,  pre- 
siding. 

Present:  Senators  McCarran,  O'Conor  (presiding),  Smith,  Fergu- 
son, Jenner,  and  Watkins. 

Also  present:  Senator  McCarthy;  J.  G.  Sourwine,  committee  coun- 
sel ;  and  Eobert  Morris,  subcommittee  counsel. 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  hearing  will  please  be  in  order. 

We  will  now  resimie  the  hearing  of  the  witness,  Owen  Lattimore. 

TESTIMONY  OP  OWEN  LATTIMORE  ACCOMPANIED  BY  HIS  COUNSEL, 

ABE  FOETAS 

Senator  O'Conor.  It  occurs  to  me,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  you  were 
on  page  21  of  your  statement,  just  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  para- 
graph, if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might  ask  one  question,  and  I 
won't  interrupt  Mr.  Lattimore  for  a  while  then. 

Yesterday,  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  quoted  at  some  length  from  the  Re- 
porter, a  magazine.  Do  you  know  whether  that  magazine  has  actively 
advocated  the  recognition  of  Communist  China  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  do  not. 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  paragraph,  I  think,  starts:  "Each  of  these 
men    *    *    *." 

jNIr.  Lattimore.  Each  of  these  men  is  a  loss  to  the  State  Depart- 
ment— and  there  are  few  men  of  the  same  caliber  left.  The  indirect 
damage  to  the  conduct  of  our  diplomacy  is  even  greater.  The  more 
politically  controversial  our  problems  of  diplomacy  are,  the  more  vital 
it  is  that  the  experts  in  the  State  Department  should  be  able  to  dis- 
cuss them  fully,  frankly,  and  without  fear,  and  should  be  free  to 
consult  with  academic  experts.  But  we  have  reached  a  point  of  gen- 
eral intimidation  at  which  our  diplomatic  representatives  must  feel 
under  great  pressure  to  report  back  to  Washington  only  what  it  is 
safe  to  report,  and  make  only  those  policy  recommendations  that  they 
feel  sure  will  not  result  in  political  attacks  on  their  careers. 

3017 


3018  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

I  am  reminded,  Senators,  of  something  that  once  happened  to  the 
Russians.  In  1939  they  invaded  Finland,  sure  that  they  were  going 
to  have  a  walk-over,  but  suffered  serious  military  defeats  and  tre- 
mendous damage  to  their  prestige.  Does  anybody  doubt  that  this  was 
because  political  intimidation  had  made  yes-men  of  the  Soviet  dip- 
lomats reporting  to  Moscow  ?  Communist  doctrine  and  the  party  line 
required  them  to  report  that  the  Finns  were  groaning  under  bougeois- 
capitalist  oppression,  and  would  welcome  the  Russian  invaders.  They 
dared  not  report  the  truth,  that  the  Finns  were  a  democratic  people, 
willing  to  fight  against  even  the  Russian  colossus  in  defense  of  their 
liberties.  The  consequence  was  that  Russia  walked  into  a  booby 
trap. 

The  anger  of  the  American  people  will  be  great.  Senators,  if  the 
political  reporting  of  the  State  De])artment  degenerates  to  this  point 
because  of  political  persecution,  intimidation,  and  the  demand  that  the 
China  lobby  be  empowered  to  lay  down  a  line  to  the  State  Department. 
"V^Hiat  booby  traps  is  the  China  lobby  laying  on  the  road  ahead  of  us? 

There  are  three  interpretations  that  have  been  made  of  the  records 
of  the  State  Department  victims  of  the  China  lobby : 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  name  the  China  lobby  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  China  lobby,  Senator,  is,  I  think,  something 
that  has  been  characterized,  in  a  political  rather  than  legal  use  of 
terminology,  as  an  open  conspiracy. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  understood  yesterday  you  did  not  know  what 
a  "conspiracy"  was. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  why  I  said  this  morning  "in  political  rather 
than  legal  terminology,"  I  don't  know  what  a  conspiracy  is  in  legal 
terminology. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  what  it  is  politically  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  expression  "open  conspiracy"  is  one  that  is 
fairly  frequent  in  the  writing  of  political  scientists. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  is  it?  What  is  an  "open  conspiracy," 
politically? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  was  just  trying  to  get  to  that.  Senator.  An  open 
conspiracy  may  be  said  to  exist  when  people  who  are  leagued  together, 
not  as  members  of  an  organization  but  because  they  have  a  common 
purpose,  do  not  claim  to  be  a  membei'ship  organization  but  openly 
state  what  their  objectives  are  and  openly  advertise  their  sympathies 
with  each  other,  and  quote  each  other's  opinions  and  works,  and  so 
forth. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  give  us  the  common  purpose  of  the 
China  lobby? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  common  purpose  of  the  China  lobby  is  to  make 
support  of  the  driftwood  government  on  the  beaches  of  Formosa  a 
primary  objective  of  American  foreign  policy,  subordinating  other 
questions  of  policy  to  the  consideration  of  all-out  aid  to  Chiang  Kai- 
shek;  the  activation  of  a  campaign,  based  on  Formosa,  for  the  re- 
covery of  the  mainland,  and  so  forth. 

Senator  Ferguson.  As  I  understand  it,  then,  you  speak  of  the  Na- 
tionalist Government  as  the  "driftwood"  government? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  that  is  a  fair  circumstantial  characteri- 
zation, Sonator. 

Senator  Ferguson,  You  once  worked  for  Chiang  Kai-shek. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3019 


Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  not  a  driftwood  government  at  that  time. 
I  worked  for  Chiang  Kai-shek  and  I  did  the  best  I  could  for  him. 

Senator  Ferguson,  Did  you  know  that  the  Communist  line  changed 
in  July  of  1943,  and  that  your  magazine  carried  the  change  of  the 
party  line,  as  far  as  Chiang  Kai-shek's  government  was  concerned? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  in  the  Tydings  hearings,  it  was  repeatedly 
asserted 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is:  Did  you  know  it?  That  can  be 
answered  "yes"  or  "no." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  know  it  only  by  the  assertions  that  were  made 
before  the  Tydings  committee  in  1950.  As  for  the  second  part  of  your 
question 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  Mr.  Bissell,  in  July  of  1943, 
in  your  magazine — I  do  not  think  you  were  editor  at  that  time,  were 
you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  not  editor. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  the  party  line  changed,-  and 
that  the  magazine  carried  the  change  of  the  partj^  line  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  ask  for  the  name  of  the  magazine,  Senator? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Pacific  Affairs,  the  one  that  you  had  been 
editor  of. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Aren't  you  wrong.  Senator,  and  aren't  you  re- 
ferring  

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question.     That  is  not  the  question. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  Bissell  wrote  an  article  in  July 
of  1943,  on  the  change  of  tlie  party  line,  as  far  as  Chiang  Kai-shek's 
government  was  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  I  may  make  a  slight  correction,  I  believe  the 
gentleman's  name  is  Bisson  and  not  Bissell. 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  that  he  answer  these  questions  "Yes"  or  "No," 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  second.  Wliere  the  question  admits  of  a 
direct  answer,  as  such  a  question  does,  it  would  expedite  matters,  we 
think,  if  you  would  answer  it  directly,  and  then  any  explanatory  state- 
ment that  might  be  made  can  be  admitted. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  knew  of  it  as  of  1950. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  when  did  you  change  against  the  National- 
ist Government,  against  what  you  called  the  "drift-wood  govern- 
ment"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I,  Senator,  did  not  change  against  any  government. 
I  would  find  it  hard  to  document  my  answer  here  exactly,  but  I  think 
about  19 — oh,  by  tlie  end  of  the  war,  I  had  grave  doubts  whether  the 
Nationalist  Government  could  survive  a  civil  war;  and  by  1947  I  was 
sure  that  they  couldn't  win  a  civil  war ;  and  I  think  by  about  1948  I 
was  convinced  they  were  going  to  lose  the  civil  war. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  now  that  your  own  Government, 
the  United  States  Government,  is  supporting  what  you  class  as  the 
"driftwood"  government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do,  and  I  think  it  is  a  mistaken  policy. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  are  challenging  the  opinion  and  the 
honesty  of  people  who  you  claim  are  assembled  together  as  the  China 
lobby,  who  are  supporting  the  very  thing  that  their  Government  is 
supporting,  that  is,  the  Nationalist  Government  of  China;  is  that  not 
a  fact? 


3020  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir,  not  exactly.  I  am  maintaining  my  own 
opinion  as  an  expert,  so  far  as  I  am  an  expert,  that  the  Government  on 
Formosa  is  not  viably  for  a  long  period.  I  think  any  policy  based 
on  that  assumption  is  a  mistaken  policy  that  will  lead  "us  eventually 
into  great  difficulties.  You  have  said  that  I  have  challenged  the  good 
faith 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Of  the  China  lobby.  I  have  just  said  that  the 
China  lobby  is  a  rather  amorphous  thing,  and  I  would  certainly  not 
challenge  the  good  faith  of  every  person  associated  with  the  China 
lobby. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  now,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  what  you 
say  in  here  is  praise  of  the  principles  of  the  China  lobby  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  "WliatI  say  here  is  that  the  consequences  of  sub- 
mitting to  intimidation  which  characterizes  as  a  traitor  or  an  agent 
of  Eussia  or  the  Chinese  Communists,  or  a  fellow  traveler  of  the 
American  Communists,  anybody  who  voices  his  opinion  that  the 
China  lobby  is  wrong,  is  one  that  is  disastrous  to  the  conduct  of 
foreign  policy  in  this  country. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  when  you  say  in  your  statement  that  the 
State  Department  is  the  victim  of  the  China  lobby 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  not  impugning  the  motives  of  the  China 
lobby  in  advocating  the  support  of  what  you  call  the  "driftwood" 
government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  impugning  the  tactics  of  the  China  lobby  in 
its  resort  to  intimidation  instead  of  fair  argument  based  on  analysis 
and  discussion  of  facts. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  if  the  State  Department  followed 
your  philosophy  that  you  have  stated  here  this  morning^  that  they 
would  be  victims  and  would  you  call  them  victims  of  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  a  hypothetical  question,  "of  you" 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  do  not  think  that  they  will  follow  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  the  Department  has  never  followed  my 
advice  or  opinions. 

Senator  Ferguson.  This  morning  you  indicated  that  the  State  De- 
partment should  call  in  academic  people,  such  as  you,  for  consulta- 
tions, is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  quite  right;  and  if  I  may  qualify  that  a 
moment,  I  believe  that  the  State  Department  should  call  in  people 
who  hold  my  point  of  view,  and  who  hold  all  other  points  of  view. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Even  including  the  Communist  point  of  view  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  the  State  Department  should  certainly 
familiarize  itself  with  the  Communist  point  of  view.  The  Communist 
point  of  view  may  be  a  dangerous  factor  in  our  present  political  life, 
but  nobody  can  deny  it  is  important. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  do  you  not  think  if  a  man  is  called  in  as 
a  consultant  on  the  Communist  point  of  view,  he  should  be  openly 
known  to  every  member  of  the  State  Department  and  the  public  that 
he  is  a  Communist  ? 

]\Ir.  Latitmore.  I  am  not  sure,  Senator,  how  I  would  handle  a  dif- 
ficult problem  of  this  kind.  I  have  never  been  faced  with  it.  Ir^ 
government,  it  is  obviously  necessary  to  have  a  very  careful  and  au- 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3021 

tlioritative  study  of  Communist  aims,  methods,  and  so  on,  and  my 
inclination  is  to  believe  that  that  kind  of  study  can  be  made  best,  not 
by  consulting  Communists,  but  by  the  study  of  people  who  never  have 
been  Communists,  and  are  neither  Communists  nor  ex-Communists, 
but  are  trained  experts  in  political  science,  economics,  and  so  forth. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  you  would  say  that  the  State  Department 
was  not  proper  in  calling  in,  for  instance,  Mr.  Rosinger,  as  an  expert, 
and  then  find  that  he  comes  before  this  committee  and  when  asked 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  he  was  or  was  not  a  Communist  at 
the  time  that  he  was  called  in  as  an  expert  by  the  State  Department, 
that  he  refuses  to  answer  on  the  ground  it  would  tend  to  incriminate 
him? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  mean  the  State  Department  should  have 
known  before  what  other  people  only  knew  afterward  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  that  that  is  an  answer  to  my 
question  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  I  do  not. 

I  asked  whether  you  thought  it  was  correct 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  question  was  whether  you  approved  of  that 
procedure. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  approve  of  the  State  Department  calling  in  any- 
body who  at  the  time  he  is  called  in  holds  a  reputable  position  in  the 
field  of  writing  and  publishing  about  foreign  policy  in  this  country, 
and  I  do  not  think  that  they  should  automatically  adopt  the  opin- 
ions of  any  one  person.  I  think  that  they  should,  and  I  believe  that 
they  do  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  subject  to  the  present  atmosphere 
of  intimidation,  try  to  assemble  opinion,  sort  it,  and  come  to  consid- 
ered conclusions  themselves. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  it  your  considered  judgment  that  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  now  is  intunidated?  You  charge  it  many  times  here 
in  this  statement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  say  the  indications  run  that  way,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  will  you  give  us  what  the  intimidation  is  ? 
You  see,  Mr.  Lattimore,  as  I  understand  it,  j^ou  are  one  of  these  men 
that  insists  that  there  should  not  be  any  reflections  cast  upon  anyone 
or  his  character  without  real  proof,  and  now,  what  is  your  proof  that 
the  Secretary  of  State  is  being  intimidated?  That  is  a  very  serious 
charge  against  a  Cabinet  officer. 

Mr.  LATriMORE.  I  should  say  that  the  drift  of  our  policy  for  the 
last  couple  of  years  shows  that  while  the  State  Department  still,  to  a 
certain  extent,  protests  that  it  is  following  its  own  policy,  it  is  largely 
following,  in  fact,  the  policy  of  its  most  intemperate  critics. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  call  the  State  Department,  then,  the 
victim  of  its  critics  because  you  personally  do  not  agree  with  the  opin- 
ions of  the  critics,  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  say  that,  no,  it  is  not  a  question  of  whether 
I  agree  with  the  opinions  of  the  critics ;  it  is  a  question  of  an  observed 
phenomenon  which  has  been  frequently  referred  to  in  the  press  of  this 
country,  as  well  as  in  the  press  of  Great  Britain,  as  saying  that  the 
State  Department  has  become  the  prisoner  or  the  captive  of  its  critics. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  objected  very  strenuously  to  some  remarks 
about  you,  as  to  the  State  Department  being  the  victim  of  your 
philosophy,  did  you  not  ? 

88348— 52— pt.  9- 9 


3022  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  objected  to  having  it  represented  that  my 
opinions  influenced  the  State  Department  when  in  fact  they  did  not; 
and  if  my  opinions  had  influenced  the  State  Department,  that  would 
be  part  of  the  record,  and  I  would  have  no  objection  whatever. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  not  ad^^ocate  that  we  allow  it  to  appear 
that  we  had  lost  Korea  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  "WHiat  did  you  state  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  wrote  a  syndicated  newspaper  article  in  which  I 
attempted  to  analyze  what  I  thought  was  the  then  state  of  discussion 
of  foreign  policy  in  Washington,  as  of  the  end  of  1949,  I  think. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  was  your  remark  on  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  my  remark,  which  has  been  used  out  of  con- 
text by  many  people  and  I  think  is  one  of  the  most  unscrupulous  cases 
of  using  my  writings  out  of  context  that  I  know  of,  contained  not  a 
word  of  advice  to  Washington  policy  makers.  I  said  as  clearly  as  I 
could  that  in  the  previous  case  of  China,  Chiang  Kai-shek  had  fallen, 
and  Chiang  Kai-shek  had  been  supported  by  this  country,  and  as  a 
result  the  State  Department  had  been  accused  not  merely  of  letting 
Chiang  Kai-shek  fall  but  of  pushing  him  over. 

In  the  case  of  Korea,  as  of  the  summer  of  1949,  it  had  been  widely 
advertised  that  Korea  was  not  considered  an  essential  part  of  the  de- 
fense periphery  of  the  United  States;  as  it  appeared  in  the  press  it 
was  stated  that  a  line  had  been  drawn  which  included  Japan  and 
Okinawa  but  did  not  include  Korea  or  Formosa,  as  I  recall.  I  said 
that  as  soon  as  the  American  military  forces  had  been  completely 
withdrawn  from  South  Korea,  it  was  likely  that  South  Korea  would 
fall;  and,  with  the  China  lobby  accusations  in  mind,  I  warned  that 
Washington  policy  planners  did  not  want  the  eventual  fall  of  South 
Korea  to  be  turned  against  them  in  an  accusation  that  South  Korea 
had  not  merely  fallen  but  had  been  pushed  by  the  State  Department. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  have  you  ever  worked  for  or 
been  in  the  employ  of  any  other  government  than  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  t  qualify  that  answer.  Senator?  I  worked 
for  Chiang  Kai-shek. 

Senator  O'C^onor.  The  question  is  as  to  any  other  government.  It 
admits  of  a  direct  answer :  You  were  or  you  were  not.  And  if  you 
were,  and  then  desire  to  make  any  explanation,  that  is  perfectly  in 
order.     But  you  ought  to  answer  the  question  directly  first. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  tliink  I  can.  Senator.  I  want  to  ask  for  the 
opinion  of  you  gentlemen  on  this  subject.  I  was  in  the  employ  of 
Chiang  Kai-shek,  who  was  at  the  head 

Senator  Ferguson.  Please  answer :  Were  you  or  were  you  not  in  the 
employ  of  any  other  government? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Point  of  order. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  right  to  ask  for  a  point  of  order. 

Just  a  minute,  Mr.  Chairman.  Just  a  minute.  I  object  to  that 
way  of  proceeding.  This  gentleman  has  no  right  to  ask  for  a  point 
of  order,  and  he  is  no  part  of  this  body. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Let  me  rephrase  the  beginning  of  my  reply.  I  da 
not  believe 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  a  second,  Mr.  Lattimore- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3023 

The  question  is  one  -svhich,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Chair,  does  admit 
of  a  direct  answer.  He  eitlier  was  or  was  not.  Now,  he  can  make 
any  explanation  he  desires  after  he  has  answered  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Chairman,  just  a  second,  before  that  goes  any 
further. 

I  advised  this  gentleman  when  he  first  come  in  here  of  what  his 
province  would  be.  Now,  that  was  no  part  of  it,  your  breaking  in 
with  any  point  of  order.  Now,  if  you  do  that  again,  you  are  going  to 
be  excluded  from  this  committee. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  That  is  up  to  you. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  right,  and  don't  do  it  again. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  That  is  up  to  you. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  certainly  do  it. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  You  have  the  power. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Proceed,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  you  have  stated  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Chair,  the  question  is  susceptible  to  a  "yes"  or  "no"  answer.  May  I 
state  that,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  not  susceptible  to  a  "yes"  or  "no"  an- 
swer, and  I  want  to  explain  why.  However,  as  I  have  said  before, 
if  the  committee  or  any  member  of  the  committee  insists  on  putting 
words  in  my  mouth,  I  will  use  those  words. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Are  we  to  understand,  then,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that 
you  do  not  know  whether  you  were  or  were  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now  I  will  ask  the  next  question.  Your  answer 
is  that  you  do  not  know. 

Senator  O'Conor.  If  that  is  correct,  you  can  proceed. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Just  a  moment. 

My  next  question — that  answers  that  question,  and  you  do  not  know. 
I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  any  of  your  trips  have  ever  been  financed 
by  any  foreign  government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  answer  to  that  question  depends  on  the  pre- 
vious one  and,  therefore,  I  will  have  to  answer  again  I  do  not  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  will  noAv  exclude  from  my  question  the  Na- 
tionalist Government  of  China,  and  as  to  anv  other  government,  have 
any  oi  your  trips  been  financed  m  any  amount  or  in  any  way  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  think  I  should  yes  to  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  will  you  give  us  the  nations  or  the  govern- 
ments that  have  financed  your  trips? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  Well,  in  1929,  when  I  was  traveling  in  Manchuria, 
I  was  allowed  to  buy  tickets  at  rebate  rates  on  the  South  Manchuria 
Railway',  which  was  Japanese-owned  and  I  believe  partly  a  private 
corporation  and  partly  a  Government  corporation.  This  was  a  usual 
practice  of  the  South  Manchuria  Railway  at  that  time,  a  privilege  that 
they  offered  to  all  writers  and  journalists. 

In  1936,  when  I  traveled  home  from  China  to  this  country  via 
Siberia,  and  spent  some  days  in  Moscow,  I  made  a  side  trip  to  Lenin- 
grad ;  and  as  I  recall,  the  expenses  of  that  trip  were  paid  by  the  Soviet 
branch  of  what  was  then  the  Soviet  Council  of  the  IPR. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  would  be  the  Government? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  Russia,  that  would  be  either  a  branch  of  the 
Government  or  an  organization  subsidized  by  the  Government,  and 
we  needn't  quibble  about  that. 


3024  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Then  perhaps  to  be  absolutely  scrupulous,  I  should  say  that  when 
I  accompanied  Vice  President  Wallace,  as  he  then  was,  on  his  mission 
in  Siberia  and  China  in  1944, 1  do  not  know,  but  possibly  a  part  of  the 
local  expenses  in  Siberia  and  China  of  the  party  as  a  whole,  not  of  me 
individually  unless  I  was  included  in  the  whole,  may  have  been  borne 
by  the  Russian  or  Chinese  Governments. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Were  you  ever  in  the  employ  of  the  British 
Government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Were  you  ever  employed  by  any  British  subjects 
to  make  trips  or  financed  by  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  employed  in  a  British  firm  which  was  regis- 
tered as  a  British  firm,  although  it  had  other  nationals  in  its  employ ; 
and  in  the  course  of  ordinary  business  work  I  traveled  fairly  exten- 
sively in  China  on  firm  expense  accounts. 

Sentaor  Ferguson.  What  was  the  firm? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  firm  was  the  firm  of  Arnhold  &  Co.,  registered 
as  a  British  firm,  operating  at  a  number  of  places  in  China,  and  it  was 
an  import  and  export  and  engineering  firm. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  do  any  writing  that  was  directly 
or  indirectly  financed  by  the  British  Government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Neither  directly  nor  indirectly,  as  far  as  I  know. 
I  worked  for  a  newspaper  once  which  was  British  owned. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  paper? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Peking  and  Tientsin  Times,  of  Tientsin, 
China. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  work  for  any  British  subjects  on 
writings  that  were  financed  by  the  British  subjects,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  contributed  to  British  publications. 

Senator  Ferguson.  In  no  other  way? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  can  recall. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  make  a  trip  into  Mongolia  for  the 
British  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  so.  Oh,  at  one  time  when  I  was  travel- 
ing in  Mongolia,  I  had  a  supplementary  grant — which  was  considered 
an  honor  award,  but  took  the  form  of  a  financial  grant,  which  I  used 
for  expenses  of  my  traveling — from  the  Eoyal  Geographical  Society. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Of  Britain  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  write  anything  for  that  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Frequently  for  the  publication  of  the  Royal  Geo- 
graphical Society. 

Senator  Ferguson.  For  the  particular  grant  that  you  had  from  the 
Royal  Geographical  Society? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  so.  I  don't  believe  that  there 
was  any  publication. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Going  back  to  my  asking  you  about  what  you 
said  in  relation  to  Korea,  I  take  from  the  Sunday  Compass — you 
know  what  that  is  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  paper  in  New  York,  I  believe. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3025 

Senator  Ferguson.  This  is  an  editorial.  I  tliink  they  quote  you 
here  as  saying : 

The  thing  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  let  South  Korea  fall — but  not  to  let  it  look 
as  though  we  pushed  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  the  Compass  quoted  me  to  that  effect,  they  mis- 
understood what  I  wrote  in  the  original  article,  and  I  should  like  to 
have  the  original  article  put  in  the  record,  if  I  may. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  will  ask  that  it  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Lattuviore.  When  I  wrote  that  article,  my  intention — and  I 
believe  it  was  clear  from  the  text — was  to  say,  not  that  this  was  my 
advice,  but  that  this  was  the  problem  that  confronted  policy  makers 
in  Washington. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  approve  that  policy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  entirely.  I  don't  know  whether  this  is  in 
writing  at  any  time,  but  I  certainly  remember  my  attitude  at  the  time, 
and  that  was  that  if  we  were  going  to  withdraw  from  Korea  and  leave 
a  situation  in  which  I  was  sure  that  the  South  Korean  Government 
was  going  to  fall,  then  if  you  are  getting  out,  the  thing  to  do  is  to 
get  out  and  not  stay  there  with  one  foot  to  be  caught  in  a  trap. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  have  the  original  article 
from  which  you  said  that  quotation  was  incorrectly  drawn? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  it  at  home. 

Senator  Smith.  I  would  like  to  know  if  that  is  a  signed  article  by 
you.     It  says  "By  Owen  Lattimore." 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  want  to  correct  it.  I  took  that  as  being  part 
of  this  editorial,  and  I  do  see  now,  as  Senator  Smith  points  out,  that 
there  is  a  division  there  and  it  is  not  part  of  the  editorial. 

It  looks  like  5'our  language. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  my  language,  and  this  paragraph  at  the  end 
has  been  taken  without  reference  to  the  article  as  a  whole.  And  I 
submit  the  article  as  a  whole  means  exactly  what  I  have  just  said. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Were  you  paid  for  this  article? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This,  incidentally,  I  should  like  to  make  clear,  Sen- 
ator, is  not  an  article,  in  minor  detail,  it  is  not  an  article  written  for 
the  Sunday  Compass.  It  is  an  article  written  for  a  syndicate  which 
sold  the  article  to  whatever  papers 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  write  the  article? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  Certainly  I  wrote  it. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right,  then,  that  speaks  for  itself. 

Senator  Ferguson.  This  is  your  language  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  my  language;  the  whole  article  is  my 
language. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  were  you  asking,  and  I  consented,  to  put 
in  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  whole  article. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  say  that  that  is  not  in  the  whole  article  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  say  that  this  concluding  paragraph  is  only  a  part 
of  the  whole  article,  which  sums  up  what  I  considered  at  the  time  to  be 
the  discussion  of  policy  toward  Korea  in  Washington  at  that  time. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  did  you  mean  by  the  last  line :  "Hence  the 
recommendation  of  a  parting  grant  of  $150,000,000.*'? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  look  over  the  article  as  a  whole  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  may ;  yes,  indeed. 


3026  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

It  might  help  us  all  in  evaluating  it  if  you  were  to  give  the  date. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  date  is  July  1949.  It  is  a  little  earlier  than  I 
thought. 

Senator,  since  several  people  are  participating  in  this  discussion, 
and  since  not  everybody  has  a  text,  may  I  read  the  full  text  so  that  we 
all  have  it  in  our  minds  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  We  had  intended,  or  I  had  at  least,  to  put  the 
entire  article  in  the  record,  but  I  think  that  you  are  entitled  to  quote 
any  part  of  it  that  you  think  gives  a  different  impression  than  that 
which  is  contained  in  the  paragraph  there. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think.  Senator,  in  order  to  make  it  clear  that  I  am 
here  quoting  opinion  rather  than  stating  opinion,  it  would  be  advisable 
to  let  me  read  the  whole  article,  because  the  article  is  linked,  paragraph 
by  paragraph,  and  I  don't  think  that  any  isolated  paragraph  gives  the 
full 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  have  been  given  the  article.  You  may  read 
it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  "Washington,"  and  this  is  July  17,  1949. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Were  you  paid  for  that  article  by  the  Compass  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  by  the  Compass. 

Senator  Ferguson.  By  a  syndicate.  And  so  you  were  really,  in 
effect,  paid,  then,  for  the  w^riting  of  this  article;  and  what  syndicate? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Overseas  News  Agency,  and  it  is  marked  here. 
"ONA."     [Reading:] 

Washington  (ONA). — It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  Truman  adminis- 
tration and  the  Department  of  State  are  going  to  have  a  rough  time  with  their 
Korean  policy.  By  the  same  token,  Republicans  in  Congress,  together  with 
Democrats  who  are  critical  of  United  States  policy  in  Asia,  are  going  to  have 
a  field  day  sniping  at  the  ofiicial  presentation  of  the  policy  of  granting  President 
Syngman  Rhee's  South  Korea  .$150,000,000  for  a  "recovery  program." 

As  the  record  stands,  it  is  now  revealed  that  Secretary  of  State  Dean  Ache- 
son  made  a  strong  appeal  for  the  .$1.50,000,000  grant  before  a  closed  session  of  thA 
Plouse  Foreign  Affairs  Committee. 

Unless  South  Korea  gets  the  money,  he  warned,  it  will  fall  within  3  months. 

Simultaneously  with  this  urgent  appeal,  however,  it  is  also  revealed  that  the 
evacuation  of  American  occupation  troops  from  South  Korea,  where  they  havo 
been  sitting  on  the  lid  ever  since  the  end  of  the  war  with  Japan,  has  now  been 
completed.  All  that  remain  are  about  200  officers  and  men  who  have  the  dismal 
and  unpromising  mission  of  attempting  to  train  an  anti-Communist  and  anti- 
Russian  defense  force. 

There  is  an  ominous  comparison  between  this  mission  and  the  MAGIC  force — 

That  is  capital  "M,"  capital  "A,"  capital  "G,"  capital  "I,"  cap- 
ital "C"— 

or  military  advisory  group  in  China,  which  found  itself  completely  baffled  by 
corruption  and  personal  warlordism  in  Chiang  Kai-shek's  China. 

Yet  there  is  logic  to  the  course  of  action  advocated  by  Secretary  Acheson.  It 
is,  moreover,  a  perfectly  convincing  logic.  What  makes  the  utterances  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  sound  absurd  is  not  the  logic  of  United  States  policy,  but  the 
fact  that  the  policy  is  now  conducted  under  rules  of  protocol  which  have  become 
as  rigid  as  tribal  taboos. 

For  the  logic  we  must  go  back  to  the  sad  precedent  of  China.  The  sad  truth 
is  that  Gen.  George  C.  Marshall 

Senator  Ferguson.  Wait  a  minute.  "Sad"  is  not  in  there  on  the 
"truth." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  "sad  precedent"  — and  I  reread  the  word 
"sad"  [reading]  : 

The  truth  is  that  Gen.  George  C.  Marshall,  on  his  mission  to  China  in  1946, 
before  he  became  Secretary  of  State,  became  convinced  of  several  unpleasant 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3027 

things  which,  because  of  the  state  of  political  opinion  in  America,  could  not  be 
stated  out  loud. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now  you  are  going  to  name  all  of  those  things. 
Mr.  Latti3iore  (reading)  : 

First,  he  was  convinced  that  the  Kuomintang  would  not  be  able  to  triumph 
over  the  Chinese  Communists  unless  it  took  American  advice. 

Second,  he  was  convinced  that  politically  and  militarily  America  could  not 
handle  the  situation  in  China  by  taking  the  Kuomintang  by  the  scruff  of  the  neck 
and  the  seat  of  the  pants  and  making  it  behave.  Yet  he  could  not,  as  a  states- 
man, advise  what  seemed  sensible  to  him  as  a  general — that  the  United  States 
simply  pull  out  and  abandon  an  untenable  position. 

As  a  compromise,  American  policy  took  a  course  of  relative  inaction,  but  not 
complete  inaction.  As  it  became  more  and  more  obvious  that  Chiang  Kai-shek 
and  the  Kuomintang  were  doomed  the  conduct  of  American  policy  became 
increasingly  delicate.  The  problem  was  how  to  allow  them  to  fall  without  making 
it  look  as  if  the  United  States  had  pushed  them.  Such  a  policy  never  succeeds 
completely,  and  critics  have  done  their  best  to  make  the  public  believe  that  the 
United  States  did  push  Chiang  and  the  Kuomintang  over  the  cliff. 

Korea  is  another  chapter  in  the  same  unhappy  story.  I  have  yet  to  meet  an 
American  who  knows  all  the  facts  and  believes  that  Syngman  Rhee  is  either 
a  popular  or  a  competent  President  of  South  Korea.  In  spite  of  high-pressure 
elections,  his  lecrislature  is  more  badly  split  against  him  than  China's  was  against 
Chiang  Kai-shek. 

Senator  Smith.  Than  China's  was? 
Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

Against  Chiang  Kai-shek. 

The  thing  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  let  South  Korea  fall,  but  not  to  let  it  look  as 
though  we  pushed  it.  Hence  the  recommendation  of  a  parting  grant  of 
$150,000,000. 

I  submit  that  that  is  exactly  what  I  said  it  was. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yon  did  not  put  in  quotes  that  this  was  some- 
body else's  statement  about  letting  it  fall. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't  put  it  in  quotes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  was  your  opinion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  opinion  was 

Senator  Ferguson.  Answer  my  question.    That  was  your  opinion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  trying  to  convey  at  that  time 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  want  to  know  what  you  did  convey,  and  not 
what  you  were  trying  to  convey.    What  about  what  you  did  convey  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  are  at  liberty  to  state  whether  that  correctly 
expresses  your  view^point,  and  whether  you  did  use  those  words,  and, 
if  it  admits  of  any  other  interpretation,  you  are  free  to  express  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes;  I  think  it  admits  of  another  interpretation 
than  the  one  Senator  Ferguson  is  trying  to  put  on  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  asking  you  whether  anyone  else  used  that 
phrase :  "The  thing  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  let  South  Korea  fall,  but 
not  to  let  it  look  as  though  we  pushed  it"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  anybody  else  used  the  phrase 
or  not,  Senator,  but  I  think  that  that  paragraph  clearly  implies  that 
this  is  the  problem  with  which  the  State  Department  is  grappling  in 
Washington  as  of  July  1949,  and  is  not  my  advice  to  the  State 
Department. 

Senator  Watkins.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question:  Did  you  favor 
the  granting  of  $150,000,000  to  South  Korea,  so  when 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  said  there,  I  say  there  quite  clearly  in  the  article, 
Senator,  that  I  consider  that  there  is  logic  to  it ;  yes. 


3028  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Watkins.  To  give  them  $150,000,000  so  when  they  did  go 
over  to  the  Communists,  they  would  have  $150,000,000  to  start  off 
in  supporting  Communist  causes  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir.  I  thought,  as  I  think  it  is  clear  from  that 
article,  I  agreed  with  people  in  Washington  who  thought  that  the 
South  Korean  Government  would  probably  not  be  able  to  stand ;  but 
I  thought  that  the  only  honest  policy  for  the  United  States  was  to  do 
what  was  humanly  possible  in  the  situation,  to  give  the  South  Korean 
Government  what  it  needed  to  stand,  so  that  if  it  fell,  or  when,  as  I 
believed,  it  fell,  it  should  not  appear  that  there  could  be  no  honest 
accusation  that  the  United  States  had  simply  abandoned  Korea. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  understand  that  if  they  were  given  $150,000- 
000,  knowing  that  they  are  going  to  fall,  that  they  would  be  that  much 
enriched  and  would  have  that  much  money  to  help  out  in  the  Commu- 
nist cause  and  it  would  go  into  Communist  hands,  that  $150,000,000; 
is  that  not  the  logical  conclusion  from  that  recommendation  of  the 
Secretary  as  well  as  your  own  recommendation  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I    answer  "yes"  or  "no,"  and  then  qualify? 

Senator  Watkins.  That  is  the  way  we  want  you  to  answer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  answer  is  "No,"  and  my  answer  is  that  the  logic, 
on  the  basis  of  precedent  in  the  case  of  China,  is  that  out  of  that 
$150,000,000,  probably  $149,999,999.99  would  end  up  in  New  York 
banks  in  the  possession  of  rich  Koreans. 

Senator  Watkins.  Then  you  favored  giving  over  $149  million  to  go 
into  the  hands  of  some  private  people  who  would  graft  that  much 
from  the  Korean  Government,  and  you  still  recommended  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  recommended  that  we  do  our  best  to  give  the 
Koreans  a  chance,  and  if  they  misused  that  chance,  that  was  their 
responsibility. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  did  not  want  it  to  come  in  to  the  Communist 
group ;  you  wanted  them  to  come  in  pretty  well  fixed  up  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think  that  he  ought  to  be  permitted  to  answer 
Senator  Watkins'  question  at  this  point. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believed  that  we  had  done  the  best  we  could  in 
Korea,  or  we  had  tried  to  do  the  best  we  could  in  Korea,  with  a  certain 
amount  of  bungling;  that  Syngman  Rhee  and  his  crowd  were  pretty 
hopeless,  but  that  the  only  honorable  thing  in  the  circumstances,  when 
we  had  announced  that  we  thought  the  situation  was  untenable  by  us, 
was  to  stake  them  to  a  chance  in  life ;  yes. 

Senator  Jenner.  Did  the  Government  follow  that  policy,  Profes- 
sor? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Government — may  I  answer  "Yes,"  with  qual- 
ifications ? 

Senator  Jenner.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  impression,  just  from  recollection,  is  that  the 
Government  was  in  the  course  of  following  that  policy,  which  had 
been  determined  before  I  had  anything  to  say  about  it,  and  therefore 
was  not  influenced  by  me ;  and  that  before  it  had  been  completed,  the 
North  Korean  Communist  aggression  occurred,  and  our  whole  policy, 
in  my  opinion  quite  rightly,  was  immediately  switched  to  resistance 
against  armed  Communist  aggression. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  stated  that  you  feared  that  the  corrupt  Ko- 
reans would  get — I  forget;  $149,909,999.99,  or  something — and  that 
the  balance  would  probably  go  to  Korea.    Now,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  out 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3029 

of  the  moneys  that  Congress  appropriated  to  help  the  Syngman  Shee 
government  in  South  Korea,  actually  your  figures  are  almost  correct, 
except  about  all  we  gave  the  South  Koreans  in  the  way  of  aid  was 
about  $200  worth  of  bailing  wire? 

Mr.  Lattimoke.  I  don't  know,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  the  concluding  paragraph  which 
we  have  read,  and  I  quote  from  your  concluding  paragi'aph,  says : 

The  thing  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  let  South  Korea  fall — but  not  to  let  it  look  as 
though  we  pushed  it.  Hence  the  recommendation  of  a  parting  grant  of  .$150,000,- 
000. 

Well,  now,  who  did  you  expect  South  Korea  to  fall  to,  and  what 
force  or  power  were  you  thinking  of  when  you  said,  "The  thing  to 
do,  therefore,  is  to  let  South  Korea  fall"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  presume  at  that  time — and  remember,  I 
am  not  stating  my  own  opinion,  I  am  quoting  opinion  in  Washing- 
ton— I  assume  that  the  conclusion  must  have  been  that  it  would  fall 
to  the  Communist-dominated  North  Korean  Government. 

Senator  Smith.  And  you  understood  at  that  time  that  the  N'orth 
Korean  Government  at  that  time  was  Communist-dominated? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  certainly  understood  it,  and  my  feeling  on  that 
subject.  Senator  Smith,  was  not  a  hasty  conclusion;  it  was  based  on 
a  considerable  previous  course  of  events — statements  of  opinions  by 
authoritative  persons. 

For  instance,  on  June  24,  Congressional  Kecord,  1949,  page  8297, 
Senator  Knowland  read  into  the  Eecord  the  following  quotation  from 
Way  of  a  Fighter,  by  General  Chennault : 

Gen.  George  C.  Marshall  told  Congress  in  the  spring  of  1948  that  if  Manchuria 
were  lost  to  the  Chinese  Communists,  the  United  States  position  in  Southern 
Korea  would  be  untenable.    Manchuria  has  been  lost  to  the  Chinese  Communists. 

On  July  5,  Congressional  Record,  1949,  page  8821,  Senator  Know- 
land  stated  his  belief  that — 

It  will  not  be  possible  for  the  southern  half  of  Korea,  which  is  the  Korean 
Government  recognized  by  the  United  States  and  the  other  Western  Powers,  set 
up  under  the  general  auspices  of  the  United  Nations,  to  retain  its  freedom. 

Therefore,  it  was  apparently  the  well-considered  opinion  of  people 
in  a  position  to  know  the  inside  of  government  workings  much  better 
than  I,  that  this  was  an  untenable  situation.  If  a  situation  is  con- 
sidered by  both  the  top  military  and  the  top  political  authorities  to 
be  untenable,  then  my  reaction  would  be,  "All  right,  it  is  untenable, 
and  the  thing  to  do  with  an  untenable  situation  is  to  get  out  and  get 
back  to  a  situation  that  is  tenable." 

Senator  Smith.  And  with  that  in  mind,  you  said  to  let  South  Korea 
fall,  and  you  meant  fall  to  the  Communists  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  With  that  in  mind,  I  summed  that  up  as  my  read- 
ing of  Washington  opinion  at  the  time. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  could  you  answer  my  question  ?  You  meant 
"to  fall  to  the  Communists,"  and  let  Korea  fall  to  the  Coimnunists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  1  meant  that  my  interpretation  of  Washington 
opinion  was  that  they  were  prepared  to  let  Korea  fall  to  the  Com- 
munists. 

Senator  Smith.  You  did  write  this  language  yourself :  "The  thing 
to  do,  therefore,  is  to  let  South  Korea  fall,"  and  there  is  no  mistake 
about  that  being  your  language;  is  there? 


3030  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  language  in  which  I  expressed  my  sum- 
mi  ng  up  of  Washington  opinion. 

Senator  Smith.  And  then  you  go  ahead  and  say : 

Hence  the  recommendation  of  a  parting  grant  of  $150,000,000. 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Now  then,  you  meant  by  that,  did  5^ou  not,  for  the 
Government  of  America  to  throw  away  $150,000,000  on  the  South 
Koreans,  after  j'ou  had  recommended  that  it  be  allowed  to  fall  to  the 
Communists  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  not  recommend  that  it  be  allowed  to  fall  to 
the  Communists. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  you  said : 

Hence  the  recommendation  of  a  parting  grant  of  $150,000,000. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  stated  my  summing  up  of  Washington  opinion. 

Senator  Smith.  So  that  you  do  not  say  you  recommended  the  $150,- 
000,000? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  You  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattemore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  the  quotation  that  you  read  from  the  Record, 
the  Congressional  Record,  was  more  than  a  year  prior  to  this  date? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  when  did  you  conclude  that  Korea,  South 
Korea,  had  to  fall  to  the  Communists — before  this  article  ?  How  long 
before  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  When  I  wrote  this  article,  the  discussion  of  this 
$150,000,000  grant  was  being  discussed  in  Washington.  I  therefore 
looked  up  the  newspaper  records  to  see  what  had  led  up  to  the  situa- 
tion, and  I  attempted  to  write  an  article  summing  that  up. 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  you  were  familiar,  were  you  not,  with  the 
speech  that  Mr.  Acheson  made  on  January  5 — I  believe  it  was — 1950, 
in  which  he  referred  to  the  fact  that  Korea  and  Formosa,  I  believe 
he  put  it,  were  beyond  the  defense  periphery  of  America? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  approve  of  that  policy? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  I  understood — may  I  answer  the  question  and  then 
qualify  it  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  You  may  do  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  approved  of  that  policy  because  I  understood 
that  it  was  not  solely  a  State  Department  policy  but  one  that  had 
been  arrived  at  after  authoritative  military  surveys  of  the  problems 
by  the  military  forces — the  representatives  of  the  military  forces  of 
the  Government. 

Senator  Smith.  Whom  did  you  understand  that  from — the  State 
Department  officials  or  the  Defense  Department  officials  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  understood  it  from  the  press,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  Only  from  the  press? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Only  from  the  press. 

Senator  Smith.  You  had  no  discussion  with  anyone  in  the  State 
Department  about  that  policy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  believe  I  did. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  now,  are  you  sure  whether  you  did  or  did  not 
discuss  it  with  anyone  in  the  State  Department? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3031 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  am  not  sure,  I  say.  Yes,  in  1949,  I  would  have 
seen  various  militarjr  and  civilian  friends  of  mine,  but  whether  I  dis- 
cussed this  particular  problem  with  them,  I  don't  recall. 

Senator  Smith.  You  would  not  say  that  you  did  not  discuss  it  with 
some  of  the  people  in  the  State  Department  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  might  have,  and  I  would  have  considered  it  a 
perfectly  legitimate  subject  to  discuss 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  then,  was 

Mr.  Lattimore.  For  any  newspaperman  to  discuss. 

Senator  Smith.  Was  that  partly  your  conclusion,  too — that  Korea 
and  Formosa  were  beyong  the  defense  periphery  of  America? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  conclusion,  Senator,  was  that  in  view  of  what 
I  knew  from  the  press,  and  the  public  discussion,  they  were  right,  or 
right  enough  so  that  I  wouldn't  attack  it. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  not  regard  that  statement  or  enunciation 
of  policy  on  January  5,  1950,  as  really  an  invitation  for  the  North 
Koreans  to  immediately  move  into  South  Korea,  when  we  announced 
we  were  not  going  to  defend  Korea  and  Formosa,  and  was  that  not 
tantamount  to  an  invitation  to  go  into  Korea,  for  the  Communists  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  a  question  of  subjective  judgment.  Sena- 
tor, and  it  wouldn't  be  my  conclusion,  and  it  would  be  a  perfectly  fair 
conclusion  for  anybody  who  wanted  to  draw  that  conclusion. 

Senator  Smith.  In  other  words,  the  Communists  of  North  Korea, 
when  they  saw  that  announcement  of  Mr.  Acheson,  that  was  tanta- 
mount to  saying,  "We  aren't  going  to  defend  South  Korea";  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Communists,  or  anybody  else,  could  read  that 
the  United  States  had  said  this  was  outside  the  defense  perimeter. 

Senator  Smith.  That  meant  they  were  not  going  to  defend  it ;  did 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  presumably  implied 

Senator  Smith.  Was  it  not  what  you  and  everybody  else  would 
understand  from  that  language? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  is  that  the  conclusion  that  you 
drew? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  conclusion  I  drew  is  that  if  a  position  is  con- 
sidered untenable,  then  it  is  wise  not  to  try  to  defend  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  asked  you  whether  you  drew  the  conclusion 
that  the  United  States  Government  had  announced  a  policy,  and 
therefore  would  not  defend  Korea  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  Your  knowledge,  in  other  words,  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Government  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  must  confess  that  one  thing  that  did 
not  enter  my  mind  at  that  time  was  the  North  Korean  armed  aggres- 
sion— marching  into  a  country  to  conquer  it  by  force  of  arms  and 
forcibly  change  the  system  of  government.  If  it  is  put  on  the  ques- 
tion not  of  supporting  the  South  Korean  Government,  but  of  resist- 
ing external  armed  aggression,  I  should  have  said.  "Certainly;  we 
should  resist  external  armed  aggression  in  Korea  or  anywhere  else 
in  the  world." 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  felt  that  we  should  let  them  penetrate  it 
and  take  it  over,  and  not  do  anything  about  it  ? 


3032  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  always  difficult,  Senator,  even  so  recently  as 
3  or  4  years  ago,  to  maintain  that  you  can  recall  verbally  exactly  what 
you  thought  at  the  time. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  wrote  an  article  advocating  something,  and 
we  have  read  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  my  anticipation  at  the  time,  based 
on  the  political  news  that  was  coming  out  of  Korea,  was  that  the 
South  Korean  Government  was  going  to  be  changed  from  inside  by 
the  discontent  against  Syngman  Rhee  that  was  already  evident,  and 
that  a  different  kind  of  government  was  going  to  come  on  the  top. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  would  be  a  Communist  government  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  necessarily,  no. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  it  have  had  Communists  in  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  you  were  writing  as  a  foreign  expert ;  and, 
Mr.  Lattimore,  you  knew  that  this  article  was  going  to  be  distributed 
throughout  the  world,  and  it  was  for  that  purpose,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  may  I  speak  to  your  use  of  the  word  "ex- 
pert"'? I  notice  that  it  was  worked  very  successfully  on  Mr.  John 
Carter  Vincent  when  he  was  here.  I  would  like  to  point  out  that 
"expert"  is  only  a  relative  tenn.  Experts  are  not  infallible.  If  ex- 
perts were  infallible,  we  would  not  have  any ;  we  would  have  a  series 
of  numbers  on  a  telephone,  and  you  would  just  dial  and  find  out  what 
is  going  to  happen.  Experts  differ  from  each  other,  and  among 
each  other. 

My  feeling  at  the  time  was  that  we  had  considered  that  Korea  was 
untenable;  that  the  Government,  as  it  stood  at  that  time,  was  going  to 
fall ;  and  that  this  would  probably  lead  to  some  form  of  amalgamated 
government  between  North  and  South  Korea,  which  we  had  always 
stated  was  our  policy.  And  I  must  say  that  I  still  hoped  at  that  time 
that  a  modified  government  would  be  possible  that  would  not  be  en- 
tirely dominated  by  the  Korean  Communists. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Wlien  you  say  here,  "Let  South  Korea  fall," 
you  meant  more,  did  you  not,  Mr.  Lattimore,  than  just  the  Govern- 
ment changing  by  a  vote  ?  South  Korea  was  to  fall  and  not  the  Gov- 
ernment ;  and  therefore,  the  only  way  it  would  fall  would  be  to  arms, 
is  that  not  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  not  necessarily  correct. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  I  ask  you  whether  this  article  was  not 
circulated  throughout  the  world  ? 

Mr.  Latttmore.  I  wish  I  could  say  that  anything  I  ever  wrote.  Sen- 
ator, was  circulated  throughout  the  world.  I  am  not  such  a  fan- 
tastically popular  author  as  all  of  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  you  say  that  Russia,  Communist 

Senator  Smith.  What  does  that  mean.  Overseas  News  Agency  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  It  was  to  be  distributed  outside  the  United 
States,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  I  believe  they  sold,  or  tried  to  sell,  their  service 
abroad,  just  as  AP  and  UP  and  other  services  do. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  now  do  you  not  think  it  is  a  fair  inter- 
pretation of  your  remarks  here  that  you,  Owen  Lattimore,  were  telling 
the  world  that  the  thing  to  do  for  America,  therefore,  was  to  let  South 
Korea  fall,  but  not  to  let  it  look  as  though  we  pushed  it,  and  it  was  an 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3033 

invitation  that  America  would  not  intervene  in  case  they  attempted 
to  make  it  fall? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  answer  to  that,  Senator,  is  "No,"  with  quali- 
fications, if  I  may. 

Senator  Ferguson.  All  right,  qualify  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  telling  the  world  what  it  already  knew: 
That  the  United  States  was  considering  that  Korea  lay  outside  our 
defense  perimeter,  and  was  untenable.  In  that  situation,  I  thought 
that  the  South  Korean  Government  was  bound  to  fall,  and  that  there 
would  take  place  an  amalgamation  beween  North  Korea  and  South 
Korea,  under  circumstances  obviously  disadvantageous  to  us,  but  we 
had  faced  that  fact  by  saying  that  the  position  was  untenable. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  not  also  indicate  to  the 
public  and  say  to  the  public  that  we  had  done  the  identical  thing  in 
relation  to  China :  That  we  had  let  it  fall  ?  "The  thing  to  do,  there- 
fore, is  to  let  South  Korea  fall,"  and  you  had  stated  bef oi-e :  "Korea 
is  another  chapter  in  the  same  unhappy  story."  And  right  about  that 
you  say  that  we  in  effect  allowed  Chiang  to  fall,  but  we  also  made  it 
look  as  if  we  did  not  push  him. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  answer  that  question  "No,"  with  quali- 
fications? 

Senator  Ferguson.  All  right,  give  your  qualifications. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  China  had  fallen  primarily  because  China  was  also 
a  situation  that  we  could  not  control.  When  we  could  not  control  it, 
we  began  to  withdraw  our  support,  but  in  fairness  to  the  still  existing 
Chinese  Government  we  w^ere,  I  think,  honorably  careful  to  make  it 
clear  that  the  fall  of  China  was  not  due  to  our  pushing  it  over,  as  was 
being  said  by  either  ill-informed  or  ill-intentioned  critics. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  you  did  use  the  same  language,  did  you 
not,  and  I  will  read  it  to  you : 

As  a  compromise,  American  policy  tooli  a  course  of  relative  inaction,  but 
not  complete  inaction. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 
Senator  Ferguson  (reading)  : 

As  it  became  more  and  more  obvious  that  Chiang  Kai-shek  and  the  Kuomintang 
u'ere  doomed,  the  conduct  of  American  jwlicy  became  increasingly  delicate. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 
Senator  Ferguson  (reading)  : 

The  problem  was — 

and  now  you  are  saying  our  Government — 

The  problem  was  how  to  allow  them  to  fall  without  making  it  look  as  if  the 
United  States  had  pushed  them.  Such  a  policy  never  succeeds  completely,  and 
critics  have  done  their  best  to  make  the  public  believe  that  the  United  States 
did  push  Chiang  and  the  Kuomintang  over  the  cliff. 

In  other  words,  you  say  that  the  State  Department  was  not  able 
to  put  it  over,  as  far  as  the  public  was  concerned,  that  we  did  not  push 
them ;  and  then  you  seem  to  criticize  some  people  for  bringing  it  out 
to  the  public  that  we  really  did  push  them,  is  that  not  a  fact  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  answer  to  your  exposition  of  what  you  think  I 
said,  Senator,  is  "No,"  with  qualifications. 

Senator  Ferguson.  All  right,  qualify  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  is  fairly  obvious  that  the  language  used 
in  that  syndicated  article  was  sardonic  language. 


3034  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  assume  you  made  it  that  way  so  that  the  public 
would  understand  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  thought  it  was  understandable,  Senator,  and 
I  was  not  writing  for  purposes  of  being  obscure. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Just  continue  with  your  explanation,  Mr.  Latti- 
more. 

j\Ir.  Lattimore.  I  was  sardonically  describing  a  situation  in  which 
a  course  of  withdrawal  had  become,  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  were 
directing  our  policy,  inevitable  because  the  situation  had  become  un- 
tenable. A  policy  of  withdrawal  is  always  full  of  pitfalls,  as  far 
as  public  opinion  is  concerned.  Misunderstanding  is  very  easy,  and 
very  natural,  and  manipulation  of  that  misunderstanding  for  polit- 
ical purposes  is  always  tempting. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  know  that  there  were  some  of 
the  nations  in  the  United  Nations  that  advocated  that  after  we  started 
the  war  in  Korea,  it  would  be  a  good  thing  if  we  could  be  pushed  out 
gracefully  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir,  Senator ;  I  don't  think  I  know  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  never  heard  that  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  would  be  along  the  same  line  of  allowing 
it  to  fall  but  not  let  the  public  know 

Mr.  Laitimore.  Senator 

Senator  Ferguson.  Would  it  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  war  in  Korea  began  in  1950,  after  a  date 
at  which  I  have  been  forced  to  neglect  a  great  part  of  what  should  be 
my  professional  activity  in  keeping  abreast  of  the  details  of  news  in 
the  Far  East  because  of  the  continuing  malicious  attacks  to  which 
I  have  been  subjected,  and  so  I  cannot  claim  to  be  as  well  informed  as 
perhaps  I  should  be. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  just  a  couple  of  questions. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  this  Overseas  News  Agency  is  the  one  that  distrib- 
uted this  article,  and  did  they  ever  distribute  other  articles  by  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir ;  they  distributed  other  articles. 

Senator  Smith.  How  was  that  Overseas  News  Agency  set  up,  and 
who  were  the  personnel  there  that  managed  it,  and  who  did  you  deal 
with  ?     Those  questions  I  would  like  to  have  answered. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Overseas  News  Agency  is  a  small  syndicate 
in  New  York,  and  I  was  approached  by  somebody  working  for  that 
agency  at  the  time  that  I  was  leaving  the  Government  service,  and  I 
am  sorry  I  don't  recall  his  name,  asking  me  if  I  would  be  willing 
to  write  an  occasional  column  of  comment  on  the  Far  East;  and  I 
think  that  I  began  writing  for  them  occasionally  in  1945,  and  con- 
tinued until  1948  or  1949, 1  think  it  was  1949,  when  their  finances  were 
somewhat  in  difficulty,  and  they  could  no  longer  afford  to  pay  me 
and,  in  fact,  they  still  owe  me  a  certain  amount  of  money ;  and  I  ceased 
writing  for  them. 

Senator  Sisiith.  Was  Mr.  Thackrey,  the  editor  and  publisher,  the 
man  who  talked  to  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge.  Senator,  I  must  say 
I  have  never  met  Mr.  Thackrey,  and  I  don't  know  him,  and  to  the  best 
of  my  knowledge  he  lias  nothing  to  do  with  the  agency. 
Senator  Smith.  And  how  about  Mr.  Gold  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3035 

Mr.  Latti3iore.  Are  you  reading  from  the  letterhead  of  the 
company  ? 

Senator  Smith.  Yes. 

JSIr.  Lattimore.  I  never  heard  of  Mr.  Gold  in  connection  with  the 
Overseas  News  Agency.  The  head  of  Overseas  Agency  when  I  was 
writing  for  it  was  Mr.  Jacob  Landau,  who  has  since  retired ;  and  who 
is  the  head  of  the  agency  now,  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  now,  where  did  you  understand  that  news 
agency  circulated  its  articles? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  circulated  its  articles  wherever  it  could  sell  them, 
as  far  as  I  know,  and  let  me  see  if  I  can  recall  some  of  the  papers  in 
which  articles  of  mine  written  for  Overseas  News  Agency  have  been 
published.  One  would  be  the  New  York  Herald  Tribune ;  one  is  the 
New  Republic;  one  is  the  Watertown  Times  of  New  York;  and  one 
is  a  small  paper  in  Connecticut,  something  like  Watertown ;  and  the 
New  Haven  Register,  I  think ;  and  the  St.  Louis  Post-Dispatch ;  and 
the  Baltimore  Sun. 

Senator  Smith.  How  about  foreign  papers? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Louisville  Courier.  Papers  abroad,  I  don't 
remember  ever  receiving  any  clips  on  that  it  was  published. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  know  about  any  of  the  other  foreign 
papers  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sure  you  could  get  the  record  from  Overseas 
News  Agency. 

Senator  Smith.  When  you  were  approached  for  an  article  to  be 
sent  out.  were  you  given  or  was  it  suggested  to  you  the  subject  that 
they  wished  you  to  write  on? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Smith.  You  chose  the  subject?  Did  you  write  it  and  sell 
it  to  them,  that  is  what  I  am  getting  at  ? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  To  use  the  celebrated  phrase.  Senator,  I  wrote  as  I 
pleased. 

Senator  Smith.  Then  how  did  you  write ;  with  a  view  to  selling,  or 
did  you  first  make  arrangements  for  them  to  buy  the  article  before  you 
wrote  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  What  is  that  ? 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  write  the  article  and  then  attempt  to  sell 
it  to  whoever  would  buy,  this  agency,  or  did  you  write  as  a  result  of 
their  arrangement  witli  you  to  write  an  article? 

Mr.  Latiimore.  Their  arrangement  Avith  me  was  at  one  time  that 
I  should  write  an  article — the  arrangement  was  at  first  that  I  should 
write  once  a  week,  and  later  that  I  should  write  twice  a  week,  and 
later  I  believe  once  again  that  I  should  write  once  a  week. 

Senator  Smith.  But  you  chose  your  own  subjects? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  And  in  this  particular  case,  you  chose  as  a  subject 
of  your  article.  "South  Korea — Another  China,"  and  is  that  not  true? 
Is  tliat  not  the  name  of  the  article,  the  subject  of  the  article? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  name  that  is  printed  there,  but  I  may 
point  out  that  I  did  not  write  the  titles.  Different  papers  published 
my  articles  under  their  own  headlines. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  think  that  you  chose  the  name,  then, 
"South  Korea — Another  China"? 


3036  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  so ;  no.  I  think  that  I  usually  sent 
by  article  in  to  the  agency  with  a  heading  of  some  kind  on  it,  but  it 
very  rarely  appeared  with  the  same  headline  in  the  different  papers  in 
which  it  was  published. 

Senator  O'Coxor.  All  right. 

Senator  Watkins.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question. 

The  last  paragraph  in  that  article,  about  South  Korea  and  China,  I 
am  not  clear  as  to  whether  you  have  said  that  that  was  not  an  expression 
of  your  opinion,  or  merely  a  quote  of  other  opinion. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  my  attempt  at  a  summation  of  Washing-ton 
opinion. 

Senator  Watkins.  You  did  not  mean  that  to  be  your  own  opinion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  meant  that  to  be  a  summation  of  Washington 
opinion. 

Senator  Watkins.  Well,  you  could  answer  whether  you  meant  it  to 
be  your  own  opinion  or  not. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Was  it  similar  to  yours,  or  at  variance  with  yours  ? 

Seiiator  Watkins.  Was  that  your  opinion  ?     Let  us  get  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  On  the  whole,  I  supported  the  policy. 

Senator  Watkins.  On  the  whole ;  and  that  included,  of  course,  this 
paragraph  ? 

Mr.  LAT'riMORE.  If  I  had  been  critical  of  the  policy,  I  should  have  so 
stated  it. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Now,  Mr.  Lattimore,  will  you  resume,  and  it 
occurs  to  me  that  this  is  one  connected  link,  up  to  the  top  of  page  24, 
if  you  might  go  on  from  where  you  left  off  reading,  if  we  could  just 
withhold  any  questions  until  you  have  reached  that  point. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  are  three  interpretations  that  have  been 
made  of  the  records  of  the  State  Department  victims  of  the  China 
Lobby : 

1.  That  they  sincerely  and  objectively  reported  the  facts  as  they  saw 
them  at  the  time.  In  a  reasonable  climate,  this  would,  of  course,  be 
the  presumption-  and  although  my  knowledge  is  necessarily  limited, 
I  am  sure  that  it  is  the  fact. 

2.  That  they  are  Communists  and  subservient  to  a  foreign  power. 
On  the  evidence  that  I  have  seen  in  your  hearings  and  the  newspapers, 
this  is  a  contemptible  and  baseless  charge. 

3.  That  there  existed  in  this  country,  and  particularly  in  the  Foreign 
Service  of  the  State  Department,  a  web  of  men  who  were  attempting 
to  serve  a  Communist  cause,  that  I  was  a  part  of  this  web,  and  that 
the  Government  officials  were  either  conscious  parts  of  it  or  dupes. 

Senator  Smith.  Just  a  moment,  there. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Will  you  withhold  questions  until  he  finishes  the 
top  of  the  next  page,  if  that  does  not  interfere  with  your  questioning? 

Senator  Smith.  All  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  central  problem  of  this  subcommittee,  Senators, 
is  to  decide  between  these  three  alternatives.  I  am  concerned  directly 
in  this  problem  as  it  touches  State  Department  officials  only  because  of 
the  third  possibility;  only  because  Joseph  McCarthy  and  some  of 
McCarthy's  fellow  travelers  have  attempted  to  use  me  as  a  tool  with 
which  to  discredit  the  men  who  have  had  much  to  do  with  determining 
our  far-eastern  policy. 

Let  us  take  a  look— an  honest  look— at  this  preposterous  theory  of  a 
secret  spider  web  with  me  at  the  center  of  it. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3037 

First  and  foremost,  my  acquaintance  with  State  Department  officials 
can  best  be  described  as  sporadic.  I  met  some  of  them  in  China. 
Foreigners  living  in  the  small  foreign  communities  of  China  saw  each 
other  frequently,  and  my  wife  and  I  were  on  friendly  terms  with  them 
there.  But  it  is  also  important  that  you  recognize  the  limitations  of 
our  acquaintanceship  with  them  and  other  Foreign  Service  personnel. 
When  they  were  transferred  to  other  posts  we  lost  touch  with  each 
other,  and  when  we  again  found  ourselves  in  the  same  city,  we  were 
glad  to  see  each  other,  but  we  seldom  corresponded  with  them,  or  they 
with  us. 

As  for  my  acquaintance  with  these  men  and  other  State  Department 
people  in  Washington,  I  must  again  remind  you  that  the  people  in  this 
country  engaged  in  far-eastern  research  are  very  few.  For  profes- 
sional reasons,  they  need  to  see  a  good  deal  of  each  other.  I  have 
always  circulated  among  far-eastern  people  in  the  State  Department 
less  than  most  academic  specialists  on  the  Far  East,  because  my  princi- 
pal research  interest  is  the  frontier  regions  between  China  and  Kussia, 
especially  Mongolia,  and  Mongolia  has  never  been  considered  impor- 
tant in  American  foreign  policy. 

Parenthetically,  I  consider  that  the  neglect  of  the  Chinese-Russian 
frontier  in  American  studies  is  a  serious  mistake.  The  lack  of  such 
studies  makes  it  difficult  to  coordinate  the  study  of  American  interests 
and  policies  in  the  Far  East,  Central  Asia,  and  the  Middle  East.  I 
have  done  my  best  to  promote  such  studies  and  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University  is  now  the  leading  university  in  the  country  in  the  teaching 
of  contemporary  spoken  Mongol  and  research  on  the  Mongol  area. 

Senator  Jenner.  May  I  ask  a  question  ? 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  clid  promise  Senator  Smith,  who  had  attempted 
to  ask  a  question  before,  that  he  could  interrogate  the  witness. 

Senator  Smith.  You  are  using  an  expression  that  I  have  been  hear- 
ing off  and  on  ever  since  I  have  been  here,  for  the  last  year  and  a  half, 
and  you  say  "victims  of  the  China  lobby."  And  I  have  never  yet  been 
able  to  get  anybody  to  identify  the  China  lobby.  Who  are  the  person- 
nel of  the  lobby,  now,  would  you  mind  telling  me,  not  only  for  past 
understanding  but  also  for  future  guidance?  Who  are  the  China 
lobby? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  your  question  follows  on  from  a  question 
asked  me  by  Senator  Ferguson  a  moment  ago.  However,  I  will  do  my 
best  to  amplify  it. 

As  I  say,  I  believe  it  is  a  rather  amorphous  body,  an  open  conspiracy 
rather  than  a  tight  membership  organization.  I  believe  that  one  might 
say  that  it  consists  partly  of  professional  or  amateur  lobbyists  in  the 
usual  sense;  that  it  has  mercenaries,  and  that  it  also  has  occasional 
allies,  sort  of  guerrilla  troops  skirmishing  around  the  fringe;  and, 
therefore,  if  one  names  any  one  person,  that  person  might  not  be  a 
member  of  the  China  lobby  in  exactly  the  same  sense  as  another  person. 
But  I  should  say  that  one  of  the  conspicuous  members  of  the  China 
lobby  is  a  Mr.  William  Goodwin,  who  is  or  has  been  actually  employed 
and  registered  as  a  lobbyist  for  the  Chinese  Embassy  here.  There  is 
the  well  known  Mr.  Alfred  Kohlberg,  who  is  a  man  of  private  means 
and  able  to  finance  his  interests  in  the  discussion  of  China  policy,  and 
he  also  has  or  had  financial  interests  in  China.  And  I  believe  that  some 
Senators  may  be  considered  to  be  part  of  the  China  lobby,  or  occasional 
allies  of  the  China  lobby. 

88348— 52— pt.  9 10 


3038  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Senator  Knowland,  for  instance,  whom  I  consider  to  be  an  absolutely- 
sincere  man,  is  frequently  referred  to  as  the  "Senator  from  Formosa." 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  a  Communist  line,  is  it  not,  "the  Senator 
from  Formosa,"  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  to  my  knowledge,  Senator.  They  may  have 
picked  it  up. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  have  never  heard  that  the  Communist  line 
is  to  call  the  Senator  from  California,  "the  Senator  from  Formosa"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  have  never  heard  that,  and  it  may  be  true, 
and  of  course,  I  don't  follow  the  Communist  press. 

Senator  Smith.  Go  ahead  and  give  us  some  more  names,  because  I 
am  interested  in  identifying  this  China  lobby. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  then  the  China  lobby 

Senator  Smith.  Right  there,  before  we  leave  Senator  Knowland, 
because  I  have  a  very  high  regard  for  Senator  Knowdand,  you  do  not 
mean  that  he  has  been  a  member  of  the  China  lobby  working  in  a 
sinister  way  against  the  interests  of  America  in  behalf  of  China, 
do  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  Senator,  I  just  expressed  or  stated  my  opinion 
that  I  have  a  high  regard  for  Senator  Knowland  and  consider  him 
an  absolutely  sincere  man,  and  that  is  why  I  prefaced  my  remarks  by 
saying  that  when  one  man  may  be  named  as  part  of  the  China  lobby, 
he  is  not  necessarily  the  same  as  another  man. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  when  you  referred  to  the  Sen- 
ator from  California  as  "the  Senator  from  Formosa,"  you  were  not 
treating  him  with  respect,  were  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator 

Senator  Ferguson.  If  you  were  repeating  hearsay.  You  come  in 
here  and  you  charge  people  with  blackening  your  character,  and  then 
you  use  an  expression  on  this  stand  against  a  Senator  as  the  "Senator 
from  Formosa." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  should 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  I  said  yesterday  that  you  could  say  any- 
thing you  wanted  to  on  the  end  of  an  answer,  which  you  have  been 
continuously  doing,  about  all  of  the  Senators  on  this  committee ;  but 
when  you  bring  in  another  Senator  and  charge  him  with  being  in  the 
China  lobby,  and  refer  to  him  as  "the  Senator  from  Formosa,"  I 
think  that  you  should  be  called  to  order. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry,  Senator.  You  may  call  me  to  order  if 
you  like.     I  was  merely 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  cannot  gloss  it  over  with  a  glib  tongue 
as  to  what  you  feel  about  him. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  considered  that  I  was  merely  citing  an  extremely 
well-known  and  partly  humorous  description  of  him  that  appears  in 
the  press  and  on  the  radio. 

Senator  O'Conor.  It  would  seem  in  order,  Mr.  Lattimore,  I  agree, 
that  the  reference  was  uncalled  for,  and  it  was  not  becoming,  and 
it  should  not  have  been  made.  He  is  a  highly  respected  and  honored 
official,  and  an}^  sort  of  reference  to  that  is  belittling,  and  certainly 
it  does  not  have  any  part  in  a  serious  discussion  or  consideration  such 
as  that  in  which  we  are  engaged.  And  if,  as  you  are  now  indicating, 
it  was  made  a  semihumorous  way,  that,  too,  has  no  part  in  this 
proceeding. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3039 

Senator  Jenner.  Miglit  I  add  there  that  any  man  who  stands  up 
for  America  is  to  be  belittled  by  such  men. 

Senator  O 'Conor.  There  will  be  no  demonstration  of  either  ap- 
proval or  disapproval. 

Senator  Smith.  Maj'be  this  will  help  a  little  bit  to  clear  it  up,  Mr. 
Lattimore.  On  page  22  of  your  statement  you  state  or  you  say  that 
"there  are  three  interpretations  that  have  been  made  of  the  records 
of  the  State  Department  victim  of  the  China  lobby." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  And  so  you  regard  those  State  Department  people 
that  you  referred  to  as  "victims,"  for  instance,  of  Senator  Knowland 
as  one  of  the  China  lobby?  Do  you  or  do  you  not  refer  to  Senator 
Knowland  as  one  of  the  people  who  has  made  a  victim  of  some  of  the 
State  Department  people  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  answer  "No,"  with  qualifications  ? 

Senator  Smith.  All  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  as  I  recall,  from  the 
press,  I  do  not  believe  that  Senator  Knowland  has  joined  in  this  kind 
of  clamor,  and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  that  I  respect  him. 

May  I  advert  to  a  remark  made  by  your  chairman?  I  was  called 
upon  to  describe  the  China  lobby,  as  I  understand  it,  and  I  very  care- 
fully specified  that  there  were  many  different  kinds  of  people  in  it, 
and  that  the  characterization  of  one  was  not  necessarily  applied  to 
another.  Then  I  thought  that  it  would  be  the  proper,  thing  for  me, 
since  I  believe  that  in  the  public  mind  a  number  of  Senators  and  Repre- 
sentatives are  associated  with  the  China  lobby,  not  to  show  any  atti- 
tude of  fear  or  cringing  by  avoiding  the  mention  of  the  names  of 
eminent  men.  I  therefore  deliberately  chose  the  name  of  Senator 
Knowland  because  I  thought  that  he  was  a  man  whom  I  could  men- 
tion in  a  very  respectful  manner  as  showing  that  I  have  a  difference 
of  opinion  with  him,  but  that  I  respect  him,  but  that  I  consider  that 
his  position  represents  one  part  of  what  this  China  lobby  is. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  are  in  a  sense  departing  from 
the  point  made  by  the  temporary  presiding  officer.  I  made  no  objec- 
tion to  your  naming  Senator  Knowland,  but  I  did  think  that  you  did 
go  too  far  in  describing  him  as  representing  other  than  the  United 
States  of  America,  which  I  am  sure  he  represents  alone,  and  will  not 
be  influenced  by  any  foreign  allegiance. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry,  Senator.  Perhaps  I  should  have  left 
that  to  the  press. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  do  you  mean  ? 

Senator  Smith.  You  mean  you  have  an  arrangement  with  someone 
on  the  press  to  characterize  these  men,  and  you  should  have  left  that 
to  the  press  ?     What  did  you  mean  by  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  "^I  simply  meant  that  this  is  a  term  under 
which  Senator  Knowland  is  frequently  referred  to,  and  I  might  have 
assumed  that  if  I  had  only  mentioned  Senator  Knowland,  that  the 
press,  as  they  often  do  when  they  are  identif;ydng  people,  would  have 
put  in  brackets  that  Senator  Knowland  has  been  referred  to  as  the 
"Senator  from  Formosa." 

Senator  Jenner.  In  what  press  have  you  read  that  Senator  Know- 
land  was  the  "Senator  from  Formosa"? 

Senator  Smith.  The  Communist  press? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.     I  never  follow  the  Communist  press. 


3040  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Jenner.  I  want  an  answer  to  my  question,  and  I  want  to 
know  in  what  press  the  witness  has  read  that  Senator  Knowland  is  re- 
ferred to  as  the  "Senator  from  Formosa"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry,  Senator,  I  can't  name  offhand  a  spe- 
cific paper  in  which  I  read  it. 

Senator  Jenner.  Not  one,  not  even  one  newspaper  ? 

Senator  Smith.  And  yet  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  term  that  I  have  been  reading  for  months, 
and  also  hearing  on  the  radio. 

Senator  Jenner.  What  papers  do  you  read,  then?  Maybe  we  can 
get  at  it  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  read  regularly  the  New  York  Times  and  the 
Baltimore 

Senator  Jenner.  Has  the  New  York  Times,  to  refresh  your  mem- 
ory, ever  referred  to  Senator  Knowland  as  the  "Senator  from  For- 
mosa" ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know.  Senator.  It  would  have  to  be  looked 
up. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  make  this  charge  and  yet  you  cannot  name 
one  paper  that  referred  to  Senator  Knowland  as  the  "Senator  from. 
Formosa"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  name — I  can  tell  you  the  papers  I  read. 

Senator  Jenner.  But  you  do  not  recall  any  single  newspaper  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  cannot  recall. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  thought  it  was  a  humorous  reference,  and  yet 
you  did  not  get  any  humor  and  you  cannot  remember  the  humor  that 
you  got  from  reading  some  newspapers  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  it  is  a  very  frequent  reference — so  fre- 
quent that  I  would  not  associate  it  with  any  newspaper. 

Senator  Jenner.  Do  you  read  the  Daily  Worker  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  read  the  Compass  ? 

Senator  Jenner.  What  paper  do  you  read  besides  the  New  York; 
Times? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  trying  to  tell  you  when  you  interrupted  me. 

Senator  Jenner.  Please  do,  with  qualifications. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  read  the  New  York  Times  regularly  and  I  read 
the  Baltimore  Morning  Sun  regularly  and  I  read  the  Washington 
Post  regularly  and  those  are  the  only  ones  I  read  regularly. 

Senator  Jenner.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Since  I  have  characterized  this  also  as  a  term  that 
appears  on  the  radio,  the  radio  programs  to  which  I  listen  regu- 
larly  

Senator  Jenner.  Now,  maybe  some  commentator.  What  commen- 
tator have  you  heard  who  referred  to  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  6  o'clock  news  broadcast  of  the  CBS  in  the 
evening. 

Senator  Jenner.  Can  you  name  one  commentator,  then,  among  all 
of  your  news  broadcasts  that  you  have  listened  to,  who  referred  to 
the  Senator  from  California  as  the  "Senator  from  Formosa"? 

Senator  O'Conor.  The  witness  should  be  allowed  to  answer. 

Senator  Jenner.  He  answered  on  the  newspapers  and  now  this  is 
a  new  question  and  I  am  asking  what  commentators. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3041 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think  that  is  in  order,  but  the  witness  ought  to 
Tje  permitted  to  complete  his  answer. 

Senator  Jenner.  He  had  completed  the  newspapers  and  switched 
over  to  radio  news  broadcasts. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Now,  the  question  is  as  to  what  radio  broadcasts 
you  customarily  listen  to,  and  the  commentators. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  programs  and  commentators  to  which  I  cus- 
tomarily listen  are  the  6  o'clock  CBS  news  program  in  the  evening 
which  includes  a  number  of  commentators  or  news  broadcasters ;  and 
I  listen  to  the  8  o'clock  CBS  news  in  the  morning ;  and  then  going  back 
to  the  evening,  I  occasionally  listen  at  7  o'clock  to  Fulton  Lewis,  Jr. 

Senator  Jenner.  Did  you  ever  hear  Fulton  Lewis,  Jr.,  refer  to  the 
Senator  from  California  as  the  "Senator  from  Formosa"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  recall. 

Senator  Jenner.  Can  you  recall  any  commentator  on  any  of  the 
news  broadcasts 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  do  think,  now — had  you  finished  your  answer? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  not. 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think  that  you  should  finish  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  7 :  15  I  usually  listen  to  Elmer  Davis. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  hear  Elmer  Davis  say  that? 

Senator  O'Conor.  I  think- 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  think,  I  wouldn't  say  for  certain,  I  think  it  is 
quite  likely. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  think  so. 

Senator  O'Conor.  Let  us  be  in  order. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  7 :  45,  I  usually  listen  to  Mr.  Ed  Murrow's  pro- 
gram, again  on  CBS.  And  that  is  all  of  the  programs  I  listen  to  regu- 
larly and  the  papers  that  I  read  regularly. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Can  you  give  this  witness  a  rest,  please  ? 

Senator  O'Conor."^  We  will  take  a  recess  for  10  minutes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  think  he  needs  a  rest.  The  record  clearly 
sliows  he  needs  a  rest. 

Senator  O'Conor.  We  will  take  a  recess  for  10  minutes. 

(Short  recess.) 

(At  this  point  Senator  McCarran  assumed  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Is  there  any  question  pending  ? 

Senator  Smith.  I  asked  Mr.  Lattimore  to  name  the  persons  who 
constituted  the  China  lobby  and  he  named  three  or  four,  and  I  would 
like  to  get  the  additional  names  of  those  he  regards  first  as  to  the  China 
lobby. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  answer,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  tried  to  begin  my  answer  with  great 
care 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  name  the  Senators  who  belong  to  the  China 
lobby,  is  that  the  question  ? 

Senator  Smith.  The  persons  who  constituted  the  China  lobby,  and 
among  them  he  named  one  Senator,  and  I  would  like  to  have  him  name 
the  others,  because  he  said  or  he  referred  to  the  State  Department  vic- 
tims of  the  China  lobby,  and  I  want  to  know  who  constitutes  the  China 
lobbj'-,  the  personnel,  and  the  names. 

The  Chairman.  That  calls  for  names,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  right.  Senator. 


3042  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Before  naming  any  further  names- 


The  Chairman.  That  calls  for  names,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I'll  mention  any  further  names  only  with 
great  reluctance 

The  Chairman.  Your  statement  in  that  regard  will  be  stricken 
from  the  record.     Name  the  names.     That  is  what  the  answer  is. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  naming  these  names  with  the  greatest  reluc- 
tance. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  stricken  from  the  record.     Call  the  names. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  characterized  people  as  being 

The  Chairman.  Call  the  names,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  lobb}'  as  being  different 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  want  to  answer  the  question  or  don't  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  Senator,  before 

The  Chairman.  I  ask  you  to  answer  the  question  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  yes,  I  will  answer  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Your  other  statements  will  be  stricken  from  the 
record,  and  you  are  called  upon  to  name  names,  and  now  do  so. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Very  respectfully,  Senator,  you  are 

The  Chairman.  Let's  name  the  names  and  answer  the  question  of 
the  Senator  from  North  Carolina. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  have  mentioned  Mr.  Alfred  Kohlberg. 
I  understand  that  an  employee  of  the  China  lobby  has  been  a  Miss 
Freda  Utley.  I  understand  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  private 
Chinese  money  in  this  country 

Senator  Smith.  Now,  that  does  not  answer  my  question. 

The  CnAiitMAN.  The  last  part  of  the  answer  will  be  stricken  from 
the  record. 

Senator  Smith.  He  says,  "State  Department  victims  of  the  China 
lobby."  Now,  "victim"  is  not  a  very  nice  designation  of  someone  who 
has  been  the  victim,  and  I  want  to  know  who  are  the  China  lobby? 

The  Chairman.  You  are  calling  for  names. 

Now,  names  is  what  your  answer  is. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  understand  that,  Mr. 

The  Chairman.  Your  answer  calls  for  names,  please,  Mr.  Latti- 
more, and  certainly  you 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Members  of  the  Chinese  Embass3^  And  that  is  all 
of  the  names  that  I  will  name. 

The  Chairman.  Any  further  questions,  Senator? 

Senator  Smith.  So  that  those  names  are  the  names  of  the  persons 
who  constitute  the  China  lobby — and  I  see  you  are  getting  reinforce- 
ment from  your  wife  behind  you.  Now,  I  am  asking  you  to  name  the 
names  of  the  persons  that  constitute  the  China  lobby,  and  you  have 
given  us  three  or  four.  Noav,  are  they  all  that  constitute  the  China 
lobby? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  speak  to  my  counsel. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  you  for  the  names. 

The  Chairman.   You  can  answer  that  question  "yes"  or  "no." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  been  told.  Senator 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  please  answer  the  question?  Never 
mind  what  you  have  been  told.  Answer  the  question  "yes"  or  "no," 
and  then  explain,  i^^  you  wish. 

Mr.  Fortas.  The  witness  has  asked  permission  to  consult  with 
counsel. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3043 

The  Chairman.  If  he  wants  to  consult  with  counsel,  he  may  con- 
sult. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Now  may  he? 

The  Chairman.   He  certainly  may.     I  have  told  you  that. 

Mr.  FoRTAS,  Thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  not  going  to  get  fortification  from  the  rear. 

Senator  Smith.  That  has  been  going  on  all  morning,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  going  to  stop. 

I  will  have  to  ask  for  quiet  in  the  rear  of  the  room,  please. 

What  is  your  question,  Senator  Smith  ? 

Senator  Smith.  I  asked  him  to  name  the  names  of  the  persons  con- 
stituting the  China  lobby  to  which  he  refers  here  in  his  statement 
on  page  22. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  name  Mr.  George  Sokolsky,  a  newspaper 
columnist,  and  I  believe  radio  commentator.  I  should  name  the 
Chicago  Tribune 


*to^ 


Senator  Smith.  Wliat  names,  individually  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.   Editorially. 

Senator  Smith.  Who  ?  The  persons,  I  called  for,  the  names  of  the 
persons  constituting  the  China  lobby  as  referred  to  by  you  on  page  22 
of  your  statement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I,  Senator,  again  refer  to  the  fact  that  I  started 
out  by  saying  that  I  consider  that  any  individual  may  be  classified 
with  the  China  lobby  in  entirely  different  degrees  and  under  entirely 
different  connotations. 

Senator  Smith.  Any  kind  of  degree.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  have 
made  a  serious  charge  here,  that  the  State  Department  employees  have 
been  made  victims  of  the  China  lobby.  Now,  that  is  a  statement 
you  have  made,  manifestly  for  the  purpose  of  prejudicing  somebody. 
Now,  I  want  to  know  who  constitutes  this  China  lobby  that  you 
apparently  mean  to  say  has  been  guilty  of  all  sorts  of  insidious  influ- 
ence on  the  State  Department.  Now,  who  are  the  persons  ?  Now,  if 
you  did  not  know  any  persons  who  constituted  the  lobby,  manifestly 
this  is  an  improper  statement  to  put  before  the  committee.  If  you 
do  know  who  constitutes  the  China  lobby,  you  are  entitled  to  tell  us ; 
and  that  is  all  I  am  asking  for,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  That  calls  for  names,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  name  a  Mr.  Victor  Laskey 

Senator  Watkins.  Tell  us  where  he  lives,  if  you  have  that  infor- 
mation. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  where  he  lives,  sir.  I  have  seen  ar- 
ticles of  his.  I  think  that  that  is  all  I  can  recall  at  the  moment, 
Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  further  questions  ? 

Senator  Smith.  The  persons  you  have  named  are  the  persons  to 
whom  you  attribute  the  influence  that  produced  the  State  Department 
victims  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Those  are  all  of  the  names  that  I  can  recall  under 
this  kind  of  hammering,  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  that  is 
uncalled  for,  to  Senator  Smith's  question,  and  I  think  it  ought  to  be 
stricken  from  the  record,  the  remark  that  he  has  been  hammered.  He 
has  had  a  recess  to  remember  names.     Certainly  to  request  a  man 


3044  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

over  and  over,  when  he  refuses  to  answer  and  fails  to  answer,  to  get 
names  of  an  organization,  I  do  not  think  that  that  ought  to  be  classed 
by  any  witness  before  this  committee  as  "hammering." 

The  Chairman.  I  entirely  agree  with  you.  Senator.  The  remark 
will  be  stricken  from  the  record.  I  hope  that  that  will  not  occur 
again. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think — and,  of  course,  I  have 
no  objection  how  he  refers  to  the  questions  I  ask  him,  because  I  cer- 
tainly started  in  this  hearing  with  not  any  feeling  against  Mr.  Lat- 
timore  whatsoever,  and  I  am  going  to  maintain  my  composure,  and  my 
effort  in  fairness,  regardless  of  his  truculence  and  his  petulance  or  his 
arrogance,  and  I  expect  to  continue  listening  to  what  the  evidence  is. 
But  when  such  flimsy  statements  as  this  are  m^^e,  and  then  he  cannot 
back  it  up,  I  think  it  is  something  that  we  should  consider  as  to 
whether  or  not  we  should  throw  this  whole  statement  of  his  out,  and 
then  proceed  by  way  of  direct  question  and  direct  answer  from  Mr. 
Lattimore,  because  we  have  seen  this  whole  statement  is  full  of  such 
jumbled  statements  as  that,  that  are  not  backed  up;  and  when  you 
specifically  inquire  as  to  the  foundation  for  his  statement 

Senator  Ferguson.  May  I  just  say  in  relation  to  that,  that  is  the 
reason  this  hearing  is  taking  so  long.  If  we  were  to  admit  these  gen- 
eralizations, such  as  the  one  about  the  China  lobby  and  the  fact  that 
the  State  Department  is  a  victim  of  the  China  lobby,  and  many  other 
statements  that  have  been  shown  to  be  hearsay,  and  not  founded  upon 
fact,  then  we  would  be  admitting  the  truth  of  all  of  these  statements 
and  these  conclusions.  That  is  the  difficulty  that  we  are  facing  here, 
with  a  long  cross-examination  to  try  to  ascertain  what  the  facts  are, 
and  what  this  man  actually  knows.    It  is  unfair  to  a  record. 

Senator  Smith.  I  think  what  he  says  is  a  reflection  upon  the  State 
Department  and  upon  the  people  who  are  honestly  trying  to  operate 
the  State  Department  in  the  best  manner,  and  for  him  to  characterize 
these  four  or  five  people  as  the  people  who  have  made  victims  of  State 
Department  employees.    But  that  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  had  one  other  question  that  I  wanted  to  ask 
the  witness.  He  refers  to  Senator  Knowland  as  the  "Senator  from 
Formosa,"  and  have  you  ever  seen  an  editorial  entitled,  "Senator  from 
Formosa"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  remember,  no. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  think  that  you  might  have? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  No,  I  don't  think  that  I  have. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  realize  that  when  you  say  that  a  Senator 
is  from  a  foreign  land,  that  it  is  a  serious  charge  against  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  think  that  that  would  vary  with  the  cir- 
cumstances, Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  If  you  felt  that  he  was,  then  it  would  not  be  a 
serious  charge? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  feel  that  it  varies  according  to  whether 
the  name  or  the  term  is  applied  humorously  or  hostilely,  et  cetera. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  to  accuse  a  man  of  being  a  Senator 
from  a  foreign  country  is  humorous  or  could  be  humorous  ? 

The  Chairman.  When  it  is  made  under  oath  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  in  a  serious  investigation. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3045 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  did  not  call  him  that  under  oath.     I 


referred  to  the  fact 

The  Chairman.  You  did  call  him  that  under  oath,  because  you  are 
under  oath  all  of  the  time  here,  Mr.  Lattimore,  and  so  anything  you 
have  said  is  under  oath,  and  your  counsel  will  so  advise  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  referred  to  him  in  quotations,  not  as  my  charac- 
terization. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  I  said  on  this  record,  I  gave  you  a  question, 
that  that  was  the  Cominunist  line.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  again :  Did 
you  ever  see  it  in  an  editorial,  "Senator  from  Formosa"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  can  remember. 

Senator  Ferguson.  To  back  up  what  I  said  about  it  being  the  Com- 
munist line,  I  want  to  show  you  that  editorial  and  ask  you  whether 
you  ever  saw  it?    Don't  read  the  slip  on  it;  I  turned  it  down. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  haven't  read  the  slip.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  know  you  didn't,  because  I  asked  you  not  to, 
but  read  the  editorial,  and  I  will  ask  you  if  you  ever  saw  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  like  to  ask  that  when  I  am  shown  written 
material — — 

The  Chairman.  You  can  answer  that  "Yes"  or  "No." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  I  be  allowed  to  see  the  whole  thing. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  want  you  to  read  the  editorial. 

The  Chairman.  That  calls  for  a  categorical  answer,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  I  never  saw. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now  look  at  the  slip. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  "San  Francisco,  Calif. — Peoples  World." 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  that  that  is  a  Communist  sheet? 

Mr.  Lat'timore.  I  believe  that  was  stated  at  the  Tydings  hearings 
a  couple  of  years  ago,  and  I  don't  know  the  paper  myself. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  learned,  then,  in  the  Tydings  committee 
that  that  was  a  Communist  sheet  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  heard  that  it  was  stated  that  it  was  a  Communist 
sheet. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  they  end  the  editorial  by  saying,  refer- 
ring to  the  Senator  from  California,  "the  Senator  from  Formosa"; 
and  in  another  place  they  use  it  as  "Senator  from  Formosa" ;  and  the 
title  is  "Senator  from  Formosa."  And  they  say :  "Knowland  has  been 
the  Senator  from  Formosa  rather  than  from  California  anyway." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  have  already  said  that  I  do  not  read 
the  Communist  press. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  will  introduce  that  into  the  record  to  prove 
that  it  is  the  Communist  line  of  referring  to  a  distinguished  Senator 
from  this  body  as  the  Senator  from  a  foreign  land,  Formosa. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  editorial  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  467,"  and  is  read 
in  full  below  by  Senator  Ferguson :) 

Senator  Fkom  Formosa 

Democratic  leaders  at  their  recent  State  executive  committee  meeting  vied 
for  the  dubious  honor  of  controlling  a  pro-Truman  delegation  to  their  party's 
national  convention. 

But  they  did  not  pay  the  slightest  attention  to  selecting  a  candidate  to  run 
for  United  States  Senate  and  to  preparing  a  major  campaign  to  defeat  Senator 
William  F.  Knowland,  the  GOP  incumbent. 


2046  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

It  is  an  open  secret  that  the  Democratic  leadership  ha«  g^ven  no  real  opposi- 
tion Governor  Warren  for  years.  It  is  also  a  fact  that  most  ot  tne  party  s 
bosses  did  not  try  too  hard  to  boat  Senator  Richard  Nixon  in  1950 
'Xv  they  seem  to  be  preparing  only  a  token  <^^-f^f  ?^fi?^Sfo,r^urPa?ty 
And  there  could  be  no  clearer  measure  of  the  bankruptcy  ^f  the  Democratic  Farty 
leadership  in  California  than  its  complacency  in  permitting  a  State  with  a 
great  pro^gressive  tradition  to  be  represented  by  two  of  the  worst  and  most 

'TnowHndTa^s  beeS\hl"senator  from  Formosa  rather  than  from  California 
«nvw.^v  His  nrimarv  concern  seems  to  have  been  representing  Chiang  Kai-shek 
fnCsen?Sl£  has  been  a  major  advocate  of  an  all-out  United  States  war 
again'st  CWna,  a^d  has  been  prepared  to  expend  millions  of  American  lives  to 
restore  the  corrupt  Chiang  regime  to  power.  ^  ^  ...       •„      -cr^  >,aa 

Knowland  has  flagrantly  misrepresented  the  people  of  Calif ornia.  He  hag 
hPPn  for  everv  reactionary  and  repressive  measure  such  as  the  Taft-Hartley 
and  iScairan  IcS  And  he  has  been  against  price  control  and  rent  control 
nnd  pvpn  the  most  modest  social-security  measures. 

And  he  can^e  defeated.  He  can  be  swept  out  of  office  in  a  wave  of  revulsion 
ag^ntt  Ws  war  poSs  and  his  flagrant  advocacy  of  vested  interests  m  tho 

^Zt'one  thing  is  sure.  That  job  can't  be  left  to  the  DemocraUc  Party  an^^^^ 
the  committee  it  has  picked  to  survey  candidates.  It  is  a  .lob  f?r  laboi,  for  toe 
Negro  people,  for  the  masses  of  people  who  want  Knowland  defeated.  We 
belfeve  tSciO,  AFL,  and  independent  unions  should  take  the  lead  in  ooinmg 
forces  behind  a  strong  progressive  candidate  who  will  not  be  a  dummy  for 
Knotvland,  who  will  really  go  out  to  win,  who  will  really  repi;esent  the  people^ 
and  will  really  realize  the  potential  of  mass  opposition  to  the  Senator  from 
Formosa. 

Mr.  Lattimork.  Mr.  Chairman,  mav  T  answer? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  ask  a  question.  .   ^  ^i    ^ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  [  ask  that  the  record  show  at  this  ponit  that 
I  repeat  that  I  do  not  read  the  Communist  press? 

]Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  inquire,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Mr  Lattimore,  earlier,  over  a  space  of  some  30  or  3o  minutes,  there 
was  discussion  of  what  was  referred  to  at  some  times  as  a  recommenda- 
tion with  regard  to  the  United  States  getting  out  of  Formosa. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  -,  .      ,  ^i    4.       •   j. 

Mr  SouRWiNE.  I  want  to  be  sure  the  record  is  clear  on  that  point. 
Is  the  point  you  were  attempting  to  make  that  you  merely,  during  that 
period  in  19  i9,  referred  to  what  you  found  or  felt  to  be  the  opinion  m 
Washington,  and  that  you  were  not  yourself  recommending  to  the 
State  Department  that  the  United  States  get  out  of  Formosa  i 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  completely,  Mr.  Sourwme. 

Mr.  SoURWiNE.  Would  you  clarify  that,  please?  Did  you  recom- 
mend to  the  State  Department  that  the  United  States  get  out  ot 

Formosa?  .  ,  --i.       •     t  i 

Mr  Lattimore.  At  the  time  that  this  article  was  written,  m  July 
of  1949,  I  was  reflecting  State  Department  opinion.  By  the  end  ot 
1949  I  had  accepted  that  opinion  as  the  established  policy. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  question,  please  ? 

(The  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

The  Chairman.  That  calls  for  a  categorical  answer,  and  I  want 
the  answer  "yes"  or  "no,"  and  then  you  may  explain  afterward. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  say  "yes,"  with  amplification  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  explain  your  "yes"  after  you  say  it,  or 
"no"  after  you  say  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3047 

Mr,  Lattimore.  At  the  end  of  1949,  in  a  memorandum  that  I  wrote 
preparatory  to  a  conference  that  was  called  by  the  Department  of 
State  in,  I  believe,  November  of  1949,  as  I  recall,  there  was  a  para- 
graph saying  that  we  should  liquidate  our  position  in  Formosa  as  rap- 
idly as  possible,  or  words  to  that  effect. 

Mr,  SouRwiNE.  Is  that  the  only  occasion  on  which  you  recommended 
to  the  State  Department  that  we  get  out  of  Formosa  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  only  one  I  recall,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  regard  Formosa  as  an  undesirable  form 
of  gover]iment,  a  monarchist  form  of  government,  which  was  not 
worthy  of  our  support? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  ever  say  so  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  was  not  a  monarchist  form  of  government,  Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  ever  say  so  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  it  was  a  monarchist 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  say  so  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  just  asking  for  clarification  of  the  question. 

Did  I  ever  say  that  South  Korea  was  a  monarchist  form  of  govern- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  am  talking  about  Korea,  Senators. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't  believe  I  could  have  ever  said  that 
Korea  was  a  monarchist  form  of  government. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  just  to  make  the  record  clear,  it  is  Korea  we 
are  talking  about  when  I  asked  you  if  you  recommended  that  the  State 
Department  get  out  of  it ;  was  that  your  understanding  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  you  say  that  you  did  so  recommend  in  some- 
thing that  you  wrote  in  November  of  1949  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  wrote  it  in  November  of  1949,  that  was 
the  date. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  you  have  here  today  on  several  occasions  used 
language  which  sounded  as  though  you  intended  to  convey  the  im- 
pression that  you  had  not  made  such  a  recommendation  to  the  State 
Department.  Did  you  at  tlie  time  intend  to  convey  that  recommenda- 
tion to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  that  time  I  intended  to  convey  that  impression 
only  with  regard  to  that  particular  newspaper  article. 

_  Mr.  SoiTrwine.  You  weren't  expanding  the  answer  beyond  the  spe- 
cific question  that  was  asked  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  not  intending  to ;  no. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  if  you  conveyed  a  broader  impression,  that  was 
not  your  intention  ? 

IVIr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  did  you  sir,  attend  a  conference  at  the  State 
Department  on  far  eastern  policy  in  October  of  1949  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  accept  your  date,  Mr.  Sourwine.  I  thought  it 
was  November,  but  it  may  have  been  October. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  take  part  in  that  conference  orally  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did. 


3048  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you,  in  the  course  of  that  conference,  say : 

*  *  *  I  think  we  ought  to  give  a  little  more  attention  to  the  problem  of 
Korea.  Korea  appears  to  be  of  such  minor  importance  that  it  tends  to  get  over- 
looked by  Korea  may  turn  out  to  be  a  country  that  has  more  effect  upon  the 
situation  than  its  apparent  weight  would  indicate. 

I  don't  know  how  it  can  be  done  but  I  should  feel  very  much  easier  about  the 
prospects  of  success  of  American  policy  in  the  Far  East  as  a  whole  if  we  can 
proceed  or  arrange  our  new  relationship  with  Japan,  whatever  it  turns  out  to  be, 
by  disengaging  ourselves  as  far  as  possible  from  southern  Korea. 

It  has  been  widely  stated,  and  I  don't  know  if  it  is  true,  but  it  may  be  open  to 
criticism — that  Korea  is  not  a  decisive  strategic  position.  Certainly  on  the 
political  side  Korea  is  likely  to  be  an  increasing  embarrassment.  Southern 
Korea  unfortunately  is  an  extremely  unsavory  police  state.  The  chief  power 
is  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  the  people  who  were  the  collaborators  of  Japan 
and  therefore  Korea  represents  something  which  does  not  exist  in  Manchuria 
and  North  China ;  namely,  if  the  Chinese  are  willing  to  trade  with  Japan  it  is 
because  they  no  longer  fear  that  trade  with  Japan  means  Japanese  strategic 
control. 

Southern  Korea,  under  the  present  regime,  could  not  resume  closer  economic 
relations  with  Japan  without  a  complete  reinfiltration  of  the  old  Japanese 
control  and  associations. 

Korea  is  a  danger  to  us  in  other  respects.  I  think  that  throughout  Asia  the 
potential  democracies — people  who  would  like  to  be  democratic  if  they  could  are 
more  numerous  and  important  than  the  actual  democrats.  The  kind  of  regime 
that  exists  in  southern  Korea  is  a  terrible  discouragement  to  would-be  democrats 
throughout  Asia  who  would  like  to  become  democrats  by  association  with  the 
United  States.    Korea  stands  as  a  terrible  warning  of  what  can  happen. 

Did  you  say  that,  sir  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  said  that ;  and  may  I  ask  if  that  is  the  full 
text  of  what  I  said  on  the  subject  of  Korea  ? 

(A  printed  document  was  handed  to  the  witness.) 

Mr,  SouRAVTNE.  If  there  is  any  additional  portion  that  you  would 
like  to  have  inserted  in  the  record,  preceding  that  or  following  that, 
I  will  ask  that  the  chairman  insert  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  merely  asking,  because  I  can't  recall  offliand 
whether  I  reverted  to  the  subject  of  Korea  later  in  the  discussion. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  This  is  in  our  record  in  full,  sir,  and  if  you  will 
notice,  I  was  reading  from  page  1677  of  volume  5  of  our  hearings, 
which  is  the  official  State  Department  transcript  of  these  conferences. 
The  whole  thing  is  in  the  record,  and  the  record  will  show,  as  you  will 
find  if  you  examine  it,  that  you  adverted  to  the  subject  of  Korea. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right,  and  I  just  wanted  to  make  sure 
whether  that  was  the  only  occasion  on  which  I  adverted  to  it.  My 
wife  has  here,  I  think,  a  separate  transcript  of  everything  that  I  said 
at  the  conference,  and  it  would  be  easier  to  check  in  that ;  and  may  I 
ask  permission  to  check  that  ? 

Mr.  SouR^\^NE.  If  there  is  anything  that  the  witness  cares  to  offer 
later  on  in  connection  with  that,  the  Chair  can  rule  on  it  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  so.    We  will  go  on  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  far  as  this  particular  reference  goes,  Mr.  Sour- 
wine,  that  is  certainly  what  I  said,  and  I  stand  by  it. 

Mr.  SouRAviNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  I  just  would  like  to  clarify  one 
minor  point  in  the  record.  At  the  bottom  of  page  20,  you  made  a  ref- 
erence to  Mr.  John  Stewart  Service,  Mr.  O.  Edmund  Clubb,  and  Mr. 
John  Carter  Vincent,  and  you  compared  them  with  Mr.  George  Ken- 
nan  ;  and  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  really  mean  that  any  of  those  three 
men  could  adequately  fill  the  same  relative  position  with  respect  to 
the  Far  East  that  Mr.  Kennan  fills  with  respect  to  Russia? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  304 i) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  recall  the  original  wording,  "would  have 
heen  capable  of  holding"?  I  will  amplify  that  to  say  "capable  of 
developing  into  that  kind  of  man."  With  that  amplification ;  yes,  I 
believe  that, 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  refuse  to  accept  it  the  way  I  stated  it,  Mr. 
Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattlmore.  Would  you  repeat  the  way  you  stated  it? 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  I  will  try. 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  read  it. 

Mr,  Sourwine.  I  wonder  if  there  was  something  in  the  w^ay  that 
I  stated  it  that  you  rejected. 

(The  question  referred  to  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  accept  that.  I  would  prefer  to  state  things 
in  my  own  words. 

Senator  Ferguson,  Mi^ht  I  inquire  there,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

After  the  Loyalty  Review  Board  of  the  President  has  found  rea- 
sonable doubt  as  to  Mr.  Service,  and  you  read  the  opinion,  do  you 
still  say  that  that  is  a  correct  statement  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore,  I  still  say  that  that  is  a  correct  statement.  Senator, 
and  I  return  to  my  characterization  yesterday  of  the  wording  of  that 
"reasonable  doubt"  ruling  as  an  undesirable  one  for  the  handling  of 
Government  personnel. 

Senator  Ferguson,  For  that  reason,  you  place  no  credence  in  the 
Board's  finding,  is  that  correct,  because  you  do  not  believe  in  the 
principle  upon  which  it  is  based  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  say  "No,"  and  then  qualify  it  ? 

Senator  Ferguson,  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  don't.  I  think  that  it  is  extremely  detrimental 
to  the  morale  of  Government  personnel  when  a  man  is  subjected  to 
repeated  jeopardy,  and  after  many  specific  clearances  is  finally  got  rid 
of  under  a  new  and  vague  wording. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Have  you  ever  accepted  the  conviction  of  Alger 
Hiss  as  being  a  proper  conviction  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  have.  I  also  accept  his  attempt  to  get  a 
fresh  trial  as  a  proper  procedure  mider  American  law. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  have  you  ever  expressed  any  objection  to 
the  Smith  Act,  the  one  under  which  the  11  Communists  were  con- 
victed ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry — first,  no,  I  have  not  expressed  any 
objection  to  it.    I  should  add  that  I  have  never  read  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Might  I  inquire,  Mr,  Chairman? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  going  to  page  23  of  your  statement,  you  will  recall 
that  you  had  discussed  three  interpretations  of  what  you  said  were  the 
"records  of  the  State  Department  victims  of  the  China  lobby,"  and 
then  you  talked  of  the  central  problem  of  the  subcommittee ;  and  then 
you  said : 

Let  us  take  a  look,  an  honest  look,  at  this  preposterous  theory  of  a  secret  spider 
web  with  me  at  the  center  of  it. 

Now,  before  I  ask  this  question,  I  want  to  lay  a  foundation  by  asking 
you,  do  you  know  what  I  mean  when  I  refer  to  the  "referent"  for  a 
pronoun  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry;  no. 


3050  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  If  you  use  the  pronoun  "he,"  and  then  I  say,  "What 
is  the  referent  for  that  pronoun,"  I  mean  who  were  you  referring  to 
when  you  said  "he." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Now,  may  we  use  it  in  that  sense  in  connection  with 
the  question  I  am  about  to  ask? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  liight  in  tlie  next  sentence  you  wrote,  and  had  mime- 
ographed : 

First  and  foremost,  my  acquaintance  with  those  State  Department  officials  can 
best  be  described  as  sporadic. 

Who  did  you  mean  by  "those"?    What  is  the  referrent  for  "those"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  corrected  this  text. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  understand  tliat,  but  you  had  "those"  originally, 
and  that  is  wliat  you  luid  mimeographed ;  and  I  want  to  know  what 
you  mean  by  "those"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  meant  originally  my  acquaintance  with  State  De- 
partment officials. 

Mr.  SouRw^iNE.  What  State  Department  officials  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  With  State  Department  officials. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  said  "those,"  and  now  I  want  the  referent  for 
"those." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  meant,  when  I  wrote  it,  to  refer  to  mj 
acquaintances  with  State  Department  officials. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  State  Department  officials? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Then  I  read  "those" 

The  Chairman,  Now,  that  calls  for  the  names  of  the  officials,  that 
is  the  question :  What  State  Department  officials  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  meant  State  Department  officials  in  general  with 
whom  I  was  acquainted. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  obviously  untrue,  Mr.  Lattimore,  because 
the  context  of  your  own  statement  shows  that  you  differentiate  be- 
tween these  men  and  other  State  Department  people.  Now,  I  want 
to  find  the  referent  in  your  own  statement  with  regard  to  "those." 
Do  you  go  back  or  were  you  referring  to  men  who  were  in  the  so- 
called  secret  spider  web,  or  do  you  go  further  back  to  the  paragraph 
above  it  and  find  "men  who  have  had  much  to  do  with  determining 
our  far  eastern  policy,"  or  do  you  go  still  further  back  to  find  the 
referent  for  "those"?  Obviously  it  must  appear  before  the  use  of 
the  pronoun. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  intention  was  to  refer  to  State  Department  in 
general,  as  people  in  general;  on  page  22,  for  example,  "the  State 
Department  victims  of  the  China  lobby." 

Then  after  I  had  written  it,  I  saw  that  the  word  "those"  would 
easily  be  interpreted  as  meaning  a  reference  only  to  three  men,  and 
I  therefore,  in  order  to  carry  out  my  intention,  struck  the  word 
"those." 

Mr.  Sourwine.  How  did  you  mean  it,  sir,  when  you  originally 
wrote  it?  Did  you  intend  it  as  a  reference  to  a  particular  group  of 
men  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  intended  it  as  a  reference  to  the  whole  far  eastern 
group. 

Mr.  Souravine.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  "far-eastern  group"? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3051 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mean  those  in  the  Department  of  State  primarily 
trained  as  far-eastern  experts,  especially  China  experts. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Are  yon  telling  this  committee  that  you  did  not 
have  a  particular  group  of  men  in  mind  when  you  said  "those"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  particular  group  that  I  had  in  mind. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  mean  all  of  the  State  Department  people  who 
were  trained  in  the  far-eastern  affairs? 

Mr.  Latiimore.  That  is  the  general  group  I  meant. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  But  in  the  next  sentence,  sir,  you  wrote :  "I  met  all 
of  them  first  in  China",  didn't  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  why  I  changed  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  have  changed  it,  but  isn't  that  what  you  orig- 
inally wrote? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  I  realized  that  some  of  the  China  group 
that  I  had  met,  China  group  of  the  State  Department  that  I  had  met, 
I  had  not  met  first  in  China,  and  therefore  I  changed  the  wording  to 
make  it  inclusive. 

Mr.  SouRvriNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  didn't  you,  when  you  first  wrote 
this,  have  in  mind  a  particular  group  of  State  Department  officials^ 
and  wasn't  that  a  group  of  State  Department  officials  all  of  whom  you 
had  first  met  in  China? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  let  us  go  down  a  little  farther 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  amplify  that? 

The  Chairman.  I  think  that  you  have  gone  into  that  before  the 
question  was  propounded  to  you,  and  I  think  that  that  is  far  enough, 
I  hope,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  you  might  obey  the  decorum  of  this  com- 
mittee, and  when  you  are  cut  off  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee^ 
tliat  is  the  end  of  your  statement,  and  your  statement  is  on  file  in 
this  committee,  and  you  are  under  oath. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  pursuing  Mr.  Sourwine's  question 
just  a  bit,  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  same 
paragraph  there  is  further  evidence  by  language  which  seems  to  me 
to  substantiate  the  contention  made  b}'  Mr.  Sourwine,  and  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  statement : 

Foreigners  living  in  the  small  foreign  communities  of  China  saw  each  other 
frequently — 

NoAv,  that  is  not  the  whole  State  Department.     It  is  those  in  China. 

*  *  *  and  my  wife  and  I  were  on  friendly  terms  with  them  there.  But  it  is 
also  important  that  you  recognize  the  limitations  of  our  acquaintanceship  with 
them  and  other  Foreign  Service  personnel. 

Evidently  he  is  referring  to  some  particular  group  in  China,  and 
then  he  adds,  "and  other  Foreign  Service  personnel."    Then — 

''When  they  were  transferred" — that  is  "they,"  and  not  the  whole 
Foreign  Service — "Avere  transferred  to  other  posts  we  lost  touch  with 
each  other     *     *     *." 

Now,  who  does  he  mean  ? 

"*  *  *  when  we  again  found  ourselves  in  the  same  city" — which 
apparently  he  did — "we  were  glad  to  see  each  other,  but  we  seldom 
corresponded  with  them,  or  they  with  us." 

I  submit  the  comment  that  it  certainly  bears  out  the  contention  of 
Mr.  Sourwine.  Those  were  not  changed  in  the  paragraph,  and  I  read 
them  just  as  they  are  in  tliere  now. 


3052  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  When  we  get  down  to  that  question,  may  I  inquire 
whether  you  made  those  changes  on  the  advice  of  counsel  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Now,  in  the  next  paragraph,  sir,  you  say : 

"As  for  my  acquaintance  with  these  men    *    *    *  " 

Were  you  referring  to  certain  men? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  referring  to  the  general  group  of  those 
working  on  China  particularly. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  didn't  mean  the  same  men  that  you  referred 
to  in  the  paragraph  above  vv^hen  you  wrote  "those"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  meant  in  the  paragraph  above,  when  I  wrote 
"those,"  the  same  that  I  meant  in  the  paragraph  below :  The  general 
group  of  people  working  in  China,  some  of  whom  I  met  first  in  China, 
and  some  of  whom  I  met  first  elsewhere,  although  they  were  China 
service  people. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  say  that  the  referent  for  those  various  pro- 
nouns is  not  the  phrase  in  the  second  paragraph  above,  that  is,  the 
first  paragraph  from  the  top  of  page  23,  "the  men  who  have  had  much 
to  do  with  determining  our  far-eastern  policy"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  would  certainly  include  them. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  let  us  go  back  to  the  paragraph  at  the  bottom 
of  page  22 :  "  *  *  *  a  web  of  men  who  were  attempting  to  serve  a 
Communist  cause  *  *  *  "  Is  that  a  referent  for  the  "those"  and 
"these"  and  the  "them"  ? 

Mr.  Lati^imore.  It  would  include  them,  and  others. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman.  Let  the  witness  con- 
tinue the  reading. 

The  Chairman.  He  may  continue  the  reading. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Aside  from  these  social  contacts,  my  Government 
experience  has  been  limited  and  my  contacts  with  anything  that  could 
be  called  policy  making  (or  attempts  to  influence  policy)  extremely 
rare.  The  record  was  fully  brought  out  in  the  hearings  before  the 
Tydings  subcommittee,  and  is  as  follows : 

1.  In  1941  and  1942  I  was  personal  political  adviser  to  Chiang 
Kai-shek.  This  was  on  the  nomination  of  President  Roosevelt;  but 
I  was  in  the  personal  service  of  Chiang  Kai-shek;  not  of  the  Chinese 
Government :  not  of  Mr.  Roosevelt ;  not  of  the  American  Government. 

I  Avas,  in  effect,  charged  with  liaison  functions  between  Chiang  Kai- 
shek  and  the  White  House.  My  first  appointment,  in  Jul}^  1941,  was 
for  6  months.  I  was  then  reappointed,  to  serve  indefinitely.  When 
I  resigned  at  the  end  of  1942  to  enter  a  war  job  in  this  country,  Chiang 
graciously  asked  me  to  consider  myself  on  "reverse  lend-lease,"  and 
to  return  to  his  service  at  any  time. 

In  February  1942,  I  returned  to  this  country  for  several  months 
during  which  Chiang  asked  me  to  familiarize  myself  with  the  han- 
dling in  Washington  of  American  aid  to  China,  During  this  time 
my  liaison  with  the  White  House,  on  Roosevelt's  instructions,  was 
through  Mr.  Lauchlin  Currie,  an  assistant  to  the  President.  I  lived 
in  Baltimore  but  came  over  to  Washington  several  days  a  week  and 
Mr.  Currie  offered  me  the  use  of  an  office  adjacent  to  his. 

The  big  problem  at  this  time  was  to  get  supplies  to  China  for  use 
in  the  war  against  Japan,  and  on  Chiang's  instructions  I  was  in  com- 
munication both  with  Mr.  Currie,  who  was  handling  this  matter  for 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3053 

the  President,  and  with  officials  of  the  various  Chinese  missions  in 
Washington. 

It  was  apparently  these  circumstances  that  formed  the  basis  for 
the  charge — as  if  there  was  some  sinister  signijQcance  in  it — that  I 
had  "a  desk  in  the  State  Department,"  from  which  the  inference  has 
been  made  that  I  influenced  the  State  Department.  Currie's  office,  and 
other  "V^liite  House  executive  offices,  were  in  the  building  which  also 
housed  the  State  Department  and  the  Bureau  of  the  Budget.  I  con- 
fess I  did  not  think  of  this  when  the  charge  was  originally  made.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  the  State  Department  were  quite  resentful 
of  Roosevelt's  use  of  his  executive  assistants,  like  Currie,  to  provide 
personal  channels  through  which  Chiang  communicated  with  Roose- 
velt, and  this  resentment  extended  to  me.  Consequently,  I  doubt  if  I 
would  have  been  very  welcome  in  the  State  Department  during  this 
period. 

2.  In  1943  I  was  Deputy  Director  of  the  Overseas  Branch  of  the 
Office  of  War  Information  in  charge  of  Pacific  operations.  As  the 
title  implies,  I  was  responsible  for  operations,  not  policy.  In  1944 
I  came  to  Washington,  still  with  the  same  title,  and  during  that  year 
I  Avent  out  to  Australia,  to  set  up  OWI  operations  under  General  Mac- 
Arthur.  You  will  recall  that  General  ThorjDe,  MadArthur's  chief  of 
Counterintelligence,  testified  before  the  Ty dings  committee  (trans- 
cript, p.  1215)  that  he  thoroughly  investigated  me  in  connection  with 
this  mission,  and  found  nothing  subversive  in  my  record.  In  fact, 
he  was  kind  enough  to  say,  "Were  I  called  on  to  commit  my  personal 
safety  and  that  of  my  command  on  information  supplied  by  Dr. 
Lattimore,  I  would  do  so  with  confidence  that  he  would  always  act  as 
a  loyal  American  citizen."  I  submit  as  an  exhibit  the  statement  made 
to  the  Tydings  committee  by  General  Thorpe  in  1950. 

May  i  submit  that,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  This  offer  will  be  withheld  until  the  Chair  can  go 
over  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  same  year,  1944,  as  a  representative  of  OWI, 
I  accompanied  Vice  President  Wallace  on  his  mission  in  Siberia  and 
China.  In  the  fall  of  that  year,  I  returned  to  my  university  work, 
eoming  to  Washington  only  1  or  2  days  a  week,  as  a  consultant  to  OWI. 

I  have  been  accused  by  Budenz  of  exerting  a  Communist  influence 
on  the  Vice  President  of  the  United  States  when  I  accompanied  him 
on  his  mission  to  Siberia  and  China.  This  barefaced  accusation  has 
"been  so  effectively  disproved  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Wallace  and  of 
Mr.  Alsop  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  repeat  their  evidence  here. 
Mr.  Wallace  in  his  recent  letter  to  the  President  also  confirmed  the 
fact  that  I  did  not  act — or,  indeed,  attempt  to  act — as  his  political 
adviser  on  the  mission  in  question. 

3.  In  the  winter  of  1945-46  I  spent  between  3  and  4  months  in  Japan 
with  the  Pauley  mission,  which  was  making  a  survey  of  American  rep- 
arations policy  in  Japan.  Using  my  connection  with  this  mission  as 
a  springboard,  a  whole  new  series  of  accusations  have  been  parroted 
here  concerning  ideas  I  am  supposed  to  have  advocated  concerning 
Japan. 

Mr.  Dooman,  Mr.  McGovern,  and  the  always  obliging  Budenz  have 
stated,  and  your  questions  to  other  witnesses  have  inferred,  that  I  rec- 
ommended a  policy  of  deindustrializing  Japan — a  policy  which  they 
in  chorus  labeled  as  Communist.    Mr.  Dooman,  Mr.  ]McGovern,  Mr. 

8S348— 52— pt.  9 11 


3054  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Colegrove,  and  your  counsel,  Mr.  Morris,  have  also,  in  cliorus,  dis- 
torted some  ideas  which  I  expressed  before  the  end  of  the  war  con- 
cerning the  Japanese  Emperor. 

It  is  a  most  interesting  coincidence,  if  one  could  call  it  that,  that 
whereas  McCarthy's  charges  of  my  subversive  influence  on  Govern- 
ment policy,  based  on  Alfred  Kohlberg  and  dutifully  echoed  by  Louis 
Budenz,  were  concerned  almost  solely  with  our  China  policy,  this  new 
note  was  suddenly  sounded  by  no  less  than  four  of  your  witnesses — 
that  my  policy  recommendations  on  Japan  were  also  sinister.  Even 
the  phrases  used  by  the  four  men  were  similar.  Mr.  Dooman  claimed 
that  the  Pauley  report,  which  I  had  written,  "provided  for  turning 
Japan  into  a  pasture."  Mr.  McGovern  testified  that  it  was  my  policy 
to  have  "a  bloody  peace  in  Japan" ;  "to  completely  reduce  Japan  to 
vagary  and  impotence";  "to  reduce  Japan  back  to  an  agricultural 
country  and  destroy  all  Japanese  industry."  To  have  Budenz  join  this 
chorus  is  most  surprising  of  all  because  in  1950  he  testified  about  me 
for  a  whole  day  and  never  even  mentioned  my  ideas  about  Japan,  But 
before  this  committee  he  obligingly  came  through  and  stated  that  I 
had  aided  the  "Communist  conspiracy"  for  a  "hard  peace  in  Japan." 

All  of  these  statements  are  false.  Now  I  do  not  want  to  appear  to 
subscribe  to  the  charge  that  anybody  who  advocated  such  a  policy  is 
a  Communist.  But  the  fact  is  "that  neither  the  Pauley  mission  nor  I 
personally  ever  advocated  the  deindustrialization  of  Japan.  When  I 
was  in  Japan  with  the  Pauley  mission  at  the  end  of  1945  I  did  play 
a  major  part  in  drafting  a  reparations  report,  in  close  conference  with 
Mr.  Pauley  and  based  on  the  assessments  of  the  technical  members  of 
the  mission,  working  with  data  supplied  by  General  MacArthur's 
headquarters.  This  report  was  anything  but  a  punitive  document 
and  could  not  possibly  be  described  as  aiming  at  a  "bloody  peace." 
It  supports  none  of  these  ridiculous  yarns.  Its  principal  recommenda- 
tions were  to  use  the  surplus  war  industry  of  Japan  as  reparations  to 
aid  the  industrialization  of  countries  in  Asia  that  had  been 
plundered  by  Japan ;  to  prevent  Japan  from  controlling  the  economic 
life  of  Asia ;  and  to  leave  Japan  enough  industry  to  provide  for  trade 
and  the  purchase  of  necessary  imports. 

Even  before  the  end  of  the  war,  when  hatred  of  Japan  was  at  its 
height,  I  wrote  in  Solution  in  Asia,  1945,  page  184 : 

We  must  avoid  confusing  industrial  demilitarization  with  disindustrialization. 
In  a  Japan  deprived  of  all  industry,  people  would  starve  by  the  million  *  *  * 
we  do  not  hate  them  to  the  point  of  starving  several  millions  of  them.  Japan 
must  be  left  with  some  industry. 

Neither  Solution  in  Asia  nor  the  Pauley  report  is  a  classified  docu- 
ment. They  clearly  show  that  whoever  steered  Mr.  Dooman,  Mr.  Cole- 
grove,  Mr.  "McGovern,  and  Mr.  Budenz  to  brand  these  recommenda- 
tions as  Communist  was  far,  far  off  the  beam  and  completely  lacking 
in  scruple. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore  has  referred  to  this  Solution  in 
Asia,  and  I  recall  testimony  in  this  record — and  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  witness  has  seen  it — of  an  FBI  agent  here  before  this  committee, 
and  I  wonder  whether  we  could  have  that  so  that  it  would  appear  here? 
Do  you  have  that? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes -I  have  it. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well,  you  may  proceed,  Mr.  Lattimore. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3055 

Senator  Ferguson.  Just  a  moment.    I  would  like  to  refer  to  this 

testimony. 

Mr.  Morris.  We  have  it,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  like  to  have  it  go  in  the  record  at  this 
point.    Have  the  clerk  read  it,  and  identify  the  witness. 

Mr.  Mandel.  This  is  the  testimony  of  Harvey  M.  Matusow,  in  ex- 
ecutive session,  before  this  committee  on  February  13,  1952. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  he  or  what  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Mandel.  He  gives  his  career  as  follows  in  the  testimony: 

I  joined  the  Communist  Party  in  October  of  1947.  A  year  preceding  that  I 
joined  the  ATD,  American  Youth  for  Democracy,  Communist  Party  youth. 

Mr.  Morris.  He  joined  the  Communist  Party  on  behalf  of  the  Fed- 
eral Bureau  of  Investigation ;  isn't  that  right,  Mr.  Mandel  ? 

Mr.  Mandel.  I  am  reading  in  sequence,  and  I  haven't  come  to  that 
jet: 

In  1948  I  worked  in  full-time  employment  of  the  Jefferson  School,  in  the 
Jefferson  School  book  shop. 

Further : 

In  Marcli  of  1949,  I  became  a  full-time  employee  of  the  Communist  Party 
of  New  York  City,  worked  at  the  county  headquarters 

Mr.  Fortas.  Is  he  reading  the  transcript  ? 
Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 
Mr.  Fortas.  He  seems  to  be  skipping  about. 

Mr.  Morris.  Was  not  Mr.  Matusow  at  that  time  an  employee  of 
the  FBI? 

Mr.  Mandel.  On  page  6  of  this  testimony  it  says : 

In  the  summer  of  1950,  I  went  to  New  Mexico,  to  Taos,  N.  Mex.,  and  at  that 
time  I  had  contacted  the  FBI,  and  was  furnishing  information  to  them  and 
still  in  the  party,  and  furnishing  information  to  them  in  relation  to  party  activ- 
ities near  Los  Alamos,  at  Taos,  N.  Mex. 

Senator  Ferguson.  At  one  time  he  was  in  the  employ  of  the  FBI, 
as  an  agent? 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  does  he  say  about  the  Solution  in  Asia, 
as  far  as  the  Communists  are  concerned? 

Mr.  Mandel.  It  says: 

Mr.  Mandel.  Mr.  Matusow,  we  are  primarily  interested  in  the  Institute  of 
Pacific  Relations  and  matters  pertaining  to  the  Far  East  in  connection  with 
the  Communist  Party. 

In  the  course  of  your  activities,  did  you  ever  handle  any  literature  of  the 
Institute  of  Pacific  Relations? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes.  In  1948,  when  I  worked  at  the  Jefferson  School  book 
shop,  and  during  the  periods  of  1949  when  I  worked  at  the  book  shop  on  Sunday 
nights  to  supply  literature  to  the  various  lecturers  they  had  on  their  lecture 
program  I  handled  certain  material  put  out  by  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Was  this  pamphlet  one  of  those  pieces  of  literature  that  you 
handled? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct.    Our  Job  in  the  Pacific,  by  Henry  A.  Wallace. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Who  published  that  pamphlet? 

Mr.  Matusow.  The  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations,  American  Council. 

Mr.  Mandel.  How  did  you  handle  that  pamphlet? 

Then  there  is  further  discussion  dealing  with  the  pamphlet. 
Senator  Ferguson.  Can  you  get  down  to  the  other  one  ? 
Mr.  Mandel.  Yes. 


3056  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Mandei,.  Did  the  book  shop  ever  promote  any  of  the  publications  of 
Owen  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes ;  it  did. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Will  you  tell  us  about  that? 

Mr.  Matusow.  The  books  Solution  in  Asia,  by  Owen  Lattimore',  published  by 
Little  Brown  &  Co. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  year? 

Mr.  Matusow.  1945 — it  was  one  of  the  books  used  in  the  book  shop  and  sug- 
gested reading  for  a  background  on  the  party  line,  the  Communist  Party  line, 
in  Asia. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suggest  that  the  Chair  may  wish  to 
order  tliis  entire  record  phiced  in  the  record  at  this  point. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  move  it  be  placed  in  tlie  record,  but  I  wanted 
to  have  Mr.  Lattimore  know  what  was  being  said  in  this  record  about 
his  book. 

Tlie  Chairman.  Is  it  your  motion  that  this  entire  record  be  in- 
cluded ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  This  witness'  testimony  be  included  in  this 
record. 

The  Chairman.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  the  order. 

(The  testimony  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  469,"  and  is  as 
follows:) 

Exhibit  No.  469 

INTERNAL  SECURITY 

United  States  Senate, 
Subcommittee  to  Investigate  the  Administration  of  the  Internal 
Security  Act  and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws,  of  the 

Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
Washington,  D.  C,  Wednesday,  February  13,  1952. 

executive  session — confidential 

Ths  subcommittee  met  at  11 :  15  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  notice,  in  room  457,  Senate 
Office  Building,  Senator  V.  Watkins  presiding. 
Present :  Senator  Watkins. 

Also  present :  Benjamin  Mandel,  Director  of  Research. 
Senator  Watkins.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order.    You  may  proceed. 

Testimony  of  Hakvey  M.  Matusow,  1308  Grand  Avenue,  Dayton  6,  Ohio 

(Resumed) 

Ml".  Mandel.  Will  you  give  your  name  and  address? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Harvey  M.  Matusow,  1308  Grand  Avenue,  Dayton  6,  Ohio. 

Mr.  Mandel.  You  have  been  previously  sworn? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Will  you  give  very  briefly  your  career  in  the  Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  joined  the  Communist  Party  in  October  of  1947.  A  year 
preceding  that  I  joined  the  AYD,  American  Youth  for  Democracy,  Communist 
Party  youth  organization. 

In  1948.  I  worked  in  full  time  employment  of  the  Jefferson  School  in  the 
Jefferson  Book  Shop. 

Mr.  Mandel.  That  is  the  Jefferson  School  of  Social  Science? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct,  at  575  6th  Avenue,  in  New  York  City. 

In  September  of  1948  I  became  a  full  time  employee  of  People's  Sings,  Inc.,  a 
cultural  organization  of  the  Communist  Pai'ty  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Whore  were  they  located? 

Mr.  Matusow.  126  West  21st  Street. 

Mi-.  IMandel.  Why  do  you  say  it  was  a  cultural  organization  of  the  Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Every  or,t,^anizer  and  full  time  employee  of  that  organization 
were  members  of  the  Communist  Party 

Mr.  Mandbx.  To  your  knowledge? 


INSTITUTE    or    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3057 

Mr.  Mattjsow.  To  my  knowledge.  I  attended  meetings  with  them  as  Com- 
munists. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Will  you  proceed  with  your  other  experiences  in  the  Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr.  Matusow.  While  at  People's  Songs,  I  worked  on  a  national  scale  with 
the  Progressive  Party  in  their  1948  election  campaign. 

During  this  time  I  was  also  an  organizer  in  the  Communist  youth  movement 
in  New  York  County. 

In  March  of  1949  I  became  a  full  time  employee  of  the  Communist  Party  of 
New  York  City,  worked  at  the  county  headquarters. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Where  were  the  county  headquarters? 

Mr.  Matusow.  35  East  12th  Street. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Who  was  your  superior? 

Mr.  Matusow.  George  Blake  Charney. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Does  that  complete  your  experience  in  the  Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Matusow.  No,  it  does  not.  In  May  of  1949,  under  Communist  instruc- 
tions, I  went  to  Puerto  Rico,  spent  three  weeks  in  Puerto  Rico. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  you  go  to  Puerto  Rico  under  the  auspices  of  the  Communist 
Party? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Mandel.  You  were  paid  by  the  Communist  Party? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Mandel.  And  you  did  not  go  under  some  other  committee  or  other 
auspices? 

Mr.  Matusow.  No,  the  Communist  Party  of  New  York  County  and  New  York 
State,  both. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Will  you  describe  briefly  your  trip  to  Porto  Rico,  what  you  did 
there,  and  who  accompanied  you? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Ted  Bassett,  who  was  then  New  York  County  Educational  Di- 
rector for  tlie  Communist  Party,  accompanied  me  to  Porto  Rico. 

When  we  got  to  Puerto  Rico,  we  met  in  closed  party  meetings  with  Caesar 
Andreau,  who  was  then  General  Secretary  of  the  Porto  Rican  Communist  Party ; 
Juan  Santo  Rivers,  who  was  Chairman  of  the  Porto  Rican  Communisty  Party. 
We  also  met  with  Juan  Sias  Corales,  Trade  Union  Secretary  for  the  Commu- 
nist Party  of  Porto  Rico  and  General  Secretary  of  the  Communist  union  there, 
either  the  CGT  or  UGT.     A  check  will  bear  out  which  one  it  is. 

His  wife,  Consuelo  Sias  Corales  was  Educational  Director  of  the  Communist 
Party  at  Puerto  Rico  ;  also  Jane  Speed  Andreau,  the  wife  of  Caesar  Andreau.  She 
had  been  a  Communist  Party  organizer  in  Alabama  and  had  attended  Commu- 
nist leadership  schools  in  New  York. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Will  you  go  on  with  your  activities? 

Mr.  Matusow.  We  were  instructed  to  set  up  a  Communist  Party  newspaper 
in  Porto  Rico  or  furnish  the  funds  for  the  setting  up  of  this  newspaper. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  you  take  funds  with  you? 

Mr.  Matusow.  No ;  but  we  brought  information  down  as  to  where  the  funds 
could  be  gotten  or  how  they  could  be  gotten. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  you  know  the  details  of  that? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes.  Well,  basically  the  funds  would  be  gotten  when  the 
paper  was  ready  for  publication  and  the  funds  were  needed,  a  Communist  or- 
ganizer would  go  from  New  York  to  Porto  Rico  with  a  bank  draft  or  the  cash 
necessary. 

Mr.  Mandel.  That  was  the  arrangement  you  told  the  Porto  Rican  Communist 
leaders? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Correct.  Now,  we  also  had  the  question  of  getting  a  Porto 
Rican  delegate  to  the  World  Youth  Festival  to  be  held  in  Budapest,  Hungary, 
in  1949. 

Eugene  Cubues,  the  Communist  youth  leader  of  Porto  Rico,  was  selected. 

I  was  instructed  to  tell  him  that  he  was  to  apply  for  a  passport  to  go  to  France, 
Italy,  and  England.  I  was  instructed  to  tell  him  to  apply  for  the  passport  to  go 
to  eastern  European  countries  as  a  tourist.  But  before  I  left,  I  received  all  of 
the  necessary  information,  photographs  and  life  history,  to  obtain  a  visa  for  him 
to  go  to  Hungary. 

I  turned  that  information  over  to  the  Communist  Party  oflSce  in  New  York. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Whom  did  you  turn  it  over  to? 

Mr.  Matusow.  To  actually  the  American  Youth  for  a  Free  World,  at  144 
RIeecker  Street. 

Mr.  Mandel.  To  what  individual  did  you  turn  it  over? 


3058  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Matusow.  To  Lou  Diskin,  who  at  that  time  was  C^'^JX^^^nd^'wiU^Siuc" 
for  New  York  State,  the  youth  movement  in  New  ^^^J^  State   and  ^^lthanstruc 

tions  for  Cubues  to  pick  up  his  visa  for  Hungary  m  P«"^' ^f^^^.^f.^^'^^^^anaged 
In  the  summer  of  1949  I  was  a  full  time  employee  of  (^'^mP  Unity-    ^  ^"^"^^ed 
the  Communist  Party  book  shop  at  that  camp,  Camp  Unity  Wingdale,  %ew  Yoi  k^ 
In  tlTe  fall  of  1949    that  is,  from  September  to  December,  I  was  a  full  time 
employee  of  th'eWot-kers  Book  Shop  at  is  East  l^th  Street  in  N^^^^^^  I  then 

carried  out  party  assignments  and  was  working  m  I.^^^^^  Communist  Lab^r^Y^^^^ 
T^nmiP  IS  nt  that  time   State  Literature  Director  ot  the  Labor  \outli  league. 

In  thrsVSimer  of  W50  I  went  to  New  Mexico,  to  Taos,  New  Mexico  and  at 
thn?  time  I  hSl  contacted  the  F.  B.  I.  and  was  furnishing  information  to  them, 
and  sun  in  ihe  party   furnishing  information  to  them  in  relation  to  party  ac- 

"^{fMl^^^^^SJl^wr^e^  pSSily  in^rested  in  the  L^Utu^  of 
Pacific  R™ons  and  matters  pertaining  to  the  Far  East  in  connection  with  the 

"^TnX'com-se'o'f  your  activities,  did  you  ever  handle  any  literature  of  the  In- 

''Mr^Vi^Sw'  ?'s''lnM48,  when  I  worked  at  the  Jefferson  School  book  shop 
and  duHne  the  peSs  of  1949  when  I  worked  at  the  book  shop  on  Sunday  nights 
totmX  literature  to  the  various  lecturers  they  had  on  their  lecture  programs, 
I  hanSed  certain  material  put  out  by  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Rf  ations^ 
Mr.  MANDEL.  Was  this  pamphlet  one  of  those  pieces  of  literature  that  you 

^""Si^  MATTTSOW.  That  is  correct,  Our  Job  in  the  Pacific  by  Henry  A.  Wallace. 
Mr  Mandel.  Who  published  that  pamphlet?  ,        r.^„„«n 

Mr  MATUSOW.  The  Institute  of  Pacific  Kelations,  American  Council. 
Mr  MANDEi.   How  did  you  handle  that  pamphlet? 

Mr  Matusow  That  was  displayed  at  the  book  shop,  and  when  people  who 
were  aUenXg  the  Jefferson  Scliool,  or  party  members  whom  I  knew  to  be  such 
iy.miired  nbout  material,  background  material,  on  Asia,  and  mainly  relating  to 
SriommunTst  ?evoUition  in  Asia  taking  place  in  China,  the  Communis  s  versus 
the  NaUonalists,  I  was  instructed  to  suggest  certain  readings.  This  Our  Job  m 
the  Pacific  was  one  of  those  suggested  readings. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Who  suggested  it  to  you?  TDoii;«,r^,.     RafnrP  that   it 

Mr   Matusow    The  manager  of  the  book  shop,  Sid  Ballinger     Before  that,  it 

wa^  R Jth  NeTthe  wife  of  Jim  Nesi,  who  works  for  the  Committee  for  a  Demo- 

^Mr'  m!L1"  Win  you  Sate  as  far  as  you  remember  what  your  instructions  were 

"rT^^TSow^' W^^^  was  one  of  the  many  books  iised-I  will 

say  that,  that  this  was",  as  I  say,  part  of  the  backgroiinc  ^/ferml  that  yo^^^ 
give  a  Communist  or  somebody  interested  in  the  sub.iect  of  the  Communist  1  arty 
V  Pwnoint  on  the  Pacific  or  the  China  question,  the  Asmtic  question  ^  _      „ 

S  IvCdel    Did  the  bo^    shop  ever  promote  any  of  the  publications  of  Owen 

Lattimore? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes,  it  did. 

Mr  SIandel.  Win  you  tell  us  about  that?  ^    ,^.  ,  n  i,„j  v,,, 

Mr".  Matusow.  The  book  Solution  in  Asia,  by  Owen  Lattimore,  published  by 

Little  Brown  &  Co. 

Z-  u'SZi^^'lU^nL.  one  Of  the  bo,*,  ».ed  In  tie  book  shop  and  ,ug^ 
Bested  reading  for  a  background  on  the  party  line,  the  Communist  Party  line,  in 

'^  lZ7t^:'it':.i:'l^^^^^^^^^  book  shop,  .id  there 

%^rTngCs"lSod?rfs1id.  the  war  in  China,  the  Communist  -volution  m 
China,  was  taking  place,  and  many  people  professed  a  great  interest  i"  that  and 
the  party,  the  Communist  Party  Une,  as  disseminated,  had  "Ot  caught  up  with 
the  tide  of  events  we  might  say.  The  party  had  been  caught  for  a  while  flat- 
Sote^fn  the  term's^?  t"e^actual  literature  put  out  by  the  Communist  Party,  in- 

^"Thi'nS  w?r?m?^^?g  too  fast  for  them.  The  State  Education  Committee  got 
together  and  decided  which  books  would  be  good  background  material,  and  which 
supported  the  Communist  Party  line. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3059 

They  came  out  with  a  decision  that  Solution  in  Asia  was  one  of  those  books 
which  could  give  a  Communist  I'arty  member  a  correct  line,  a  Communist  line,  on 
the  Asiatic  situation  in  China  and  China  specifically. 

JMr.  Mandel.  Did  the  book  shop  also  promote  the  works  of  Israel  Epstein? 

Mr.  Matusqw.  Yes.  One  book  in  specific  was  The  Unfinished  Revolution  in 
China.  Besides  promoting  the  books  of  Israel  Epstein,  he  was  a  lecturer  at  the 
Jefferson  School  on  the  question  of  China. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  it  promote  the  works  of  Lawrence  K.  Rossinger? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  don't  recall  the  name.  May  I  go  back  on  one  point  of  Israel 
Epstein?  When  I  worked  at  the  Jefferson  School,  I  was  informed  by  David 
Ooldway,  who  was  then  the  Executive  Secretary  or  Director  of  the  Jefferson 
School,  or  held  a  leading  position  at  the  school,  that  nobody  works  at  the  Jefferson 
School  and  there  are  no  lecturers  on  our  programs  who  are  not  Communist  Party 
members. 

Mr.  Goldway  is  also  a  member  of  the  New  York  State  Educational  Committee 
of  the  Communist  Party. 

Mr.  Mandel.  How  do  you  know  that? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  attended  the  meetings,  staff  meetings,  of  the  Jefferson  School. 

As  I  say,  I  was  a  full-time  employee,  and  when  I  was  on  the  New  York  State 
Educational  Committee  of  the  Labor  Youth  League,  I  was  on  the  Educational 
Committee  of  the  Labor  Youth  League,  and  we  worked  closely  with  the  Com- 
munist Party  Education  Committee  in  New  York  State,  and  I  was  told  that 
Mr.  Dave  Goldway  was  a  member  of  that  Committee  and  had  seen  him  at  Com- 
munist Party  headquarters  when  he  was  there  to  attend  meetings  of  this  New 
York  Educational  Committee. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  if  anything  do  you  know  about  the  work  of  Frederick  V, 
Field? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  was  told  there  again,  before  my  trip  to  Porto  Rico,  I  should 
say,  that  I  should  prepare  myself  or  I  should  get  a  good  background  of  the  Porto 
Rican  question. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Who  told  you? 

Mr.  Matusow.  The  Communist  Party  organizer  in  New  York  City,  George 
Blake  Charney, 

Before  I  went  to  Porto  Rico  they  wanted  to  make  sure  I  was  well  founded  in 
the  party  line  of  Porto  Rico.  I  asked  where  I  might  get  the  material  needed 
for  the  study  of  the  background  on  the  part  of  the  Porto  Rico  question,  and  I 
was  informed  that  the  Frederick  Vanderbilt  Field  library  on  West  26th  Street, 
the  Frederick  Vanderbilt  Field  library  was  the  place  to  50  to  get  the  party  line 
and  the  background  material  needed  for  Porto  Rico. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  you  actually  go  to  that  library? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes,  I  did. 

Mr.  Mandel.  How  long  were  you  there? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  spent  three  or  four  afternoons  and  a  few  mornings  there  doing 
research  on  Porto  Rico. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  Frederick  V.  Field  teach  at  the  Jefferson  School? 

Mr.  Matusow.  To  my  knowledge  he  lectured  there,  he  did  lecture  there.  I 
mean,  I  know  that,  but  I  can't  say  what  specific  lecture  it  was. 

Mr.  Mandel.  In  what  way  did  the  name  of  Evans  F.  Carlson  come  to  your 
knowledge? 

Mr.  Matusow.  When  I  was  a  member  of  the  AYD,  American  Youth  for  De- 
mocracy, I  picked  up  the  official  publication  of  the  American  Youth  for  Democracy, 
which  at  that  time  was  the  Communist  Party  Youth  Organization  in  the  United 
States,  and  on  the  back  cover  of  this  publication  called  Youth,  a  letter  from 
Evans  P.  Carlson,  a  retired  Brigadier  General  of  the  Marine  Corps,  was  pub- 
lished, and  it  stated  that  he  was  proud  and  honored  that  his  name  had  been 
chosen  to  name  one  of  the  AYD  Clubs. 

It  seemed  that  one  of  the  AYD  Clubs  had  written  him  asking  him  for  permission 
to  use  his  name. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Is  there  any  way  you  can  get  us  a  copy  of  that? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  don't  know  what  issue  that  would  be. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  year  would  that  be? 

Mr.  IMatusow.  It  would  be  one  of  the  1046  or  1947  issues. 

I  was  also  informed  by  people  in  the  party  literature  set-up  when  the  book 
The  Big  Yankee  came  out,  which  was  the  biography  of  Evans  F.  Carlson,  before 
I  sold  that  book,  I  mean  in  my  capacity  as  a  literature  agent  for  the  Communist 
Party,  that  it  was  highly  recommended  reading  on  the  question  of  the  Com- 
munists in  Asia,  and  that  General  Carlson  was  a  very  close  friend  of  Mao  Tse- 


3060  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

tung',  the  party  chairman  and  the  head  of  the  Communist  Chinese  Government.  I 
was  also  told  that  General  Carlson  had  heen  to  China  and  he  had  trained  the 
remnants  of  the  Eighth  Kout  Army,  which  was  the  Communist  Army.  That  was 
before  Pearl  Harbor. 

Mr.  Mandel.  In  what  way  did  the  name  of  Corliss  Lament  corpe  to  your  at- 
tention? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Corliss  Lamont  had  a  number  of  articles  published  in  a  mag- 
azine called  Science  and  Society. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  is  the  magazine? 

Mr.  Matusow.  It  was  a  Marxist  quarterly,  I  believe.  It  was  put  out  by  mem- 
bers of  the  Communist  Party.    It  delved  mostly  into  philosophical  questions. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Was  it  considered  a  Communist  publication  by  the  Jeffei-son  book 
sliop  ? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct.  We  also  handle  a  book,  and  the  title  slips  my 
mind  right  now,  by  Mr.  Lamont,  published  by  the  Philosophical  Library  in  1949 
or  1950.  dealing  with  Marxist  philosophy. 

Mr.  Mandel.  In  other  words,  the  work  of  Corliss  Lamont  was  promoted,  the 
books  of  Corliss  Lamont  were  promoted,  by  the  Jefferson  book  shop? 

Mr.  Matusow.  That  is  correct,  and  also  the  Workers  book  shop. 

Mr.  Mandel.  In  what  way  has  the  name  of  Chu  Tong  come  to  your  attention? 

Mr.  Matusow.  He  was  editor  of  the  China  Daily  News. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  was  the  official  estimate  of  the  China  Daily  News? 

Mr.  Matusow.  When  Mr.  Chu  Tong  lectured  at  the  Jefferson  School  of  Social 
Science  on  the  question  of  China,  I  was  informed  before  his  lecture  that  he  was 
a  membor  of  the  Communist  Party. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Who  informed  you? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Dave  Goldway,  of  the  Jefferson  School.  I  might  add  that  the 
reason  for  this  answer  and  the  reason  for  my  question  was  that  I  was  to  handle 
literature  that  was  to  be  sold  during  his  lecture. 

Lefore  anybody  lectured,  I  inquired  about  how  far  with  the  party  line  "can  I 
go  in  selling  the  literature?"  I  mean,  "would  there  be  any  objections  on  the 
part  of  the  lecturer?"  I  was  informed  that  he  was  a  party  member  and  that  I 
could  go  all  out  in  distributing  party  literature  at  his  lecture. 

I  was  also  told  by  the  same  person,  and  other  people  connected  with  the  Daily 
Worker  and  the  Communist  Party  State  Office  when  I  was  employed  there,  that 
the  China  Daily  News  was  the  Chinese  language  version  of  the  Daily  Worker  in 
that  it  disseminated  the  line  so  closely  and  did  not  deviate. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Did  you  remember  who  told  you  this? 

Mr.  Matus;ow.  Therfe  again  I  go  back  to  Mr.  Dave  Goldway.  I  go  to  Ben 
Bordofsky. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Who  is  he? 

Mr.  Matusow.  He  is  head  of  Wholesale  Book  Corporation,  the  Communist 
Party  literature  distributing  house  in  uVew  York  and  nationally,  and  on  occasions 
when  I  had  occasion  to  visit  the  offices  of  the  Daily  Worker  and  speak  to  certain 
people  there,  such  as  Allen  Max,  and  offhand  I  can't  think  of  some  of  the  other 
names,  and  also  Mr.  James  Nesi,  a  teacher  at  the  Jefferson  School  and  a  lecturer 
for  the  Committee  for  a  Democratic  Far  Eastern  Policy,  he  also  told  me  that  he 
took  the  China  Daily  News  as  a  Communist  party  organ. 

Mr.  IVIandel.  Would  you  remember  what  year  Chu  Tong  lectured  at  the  Jeffer- 
son School,  approximately? 

Mr.  Matusow.  1949. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Have  you  anything  more  to  say  about  Chu  Tong  or  the  China 
Daily  News? 

Mr.  Matusow.  No  ;  I  believe  that  completes  that. 

Well,  yes ;  also  one  other  person,  if  I  might,  a  member  of  my  club,  the  Tomp- 
kins Square  Youth  Club  of  the  Communist  Party,  was  a  man  named  Lee  York, 
or  it  could  have  been  pronounced  York  Lee.  I  am  not  sure  which  was  his  first 
or  last  name. 

He  was  born  in  China.  At  the  time  he  was  about  24  years  old.  He  had  joined 
the  Chinese  Communist  Party  at  tlie  age  of  eleven  in  China.  During  the  second 
World  War  he  joined  the  American  Army  and  claims  to  have  become  an  Ameri- 
can citizen  on  the  basis  of  that. 

He  also  referred  to  the  China  Daily  News  as  a  Communist  Party  organ,  distrib- 
uted among  the  Chinese  people  in  New  York  City. 

Mr.  ]\Iandel.  In  conversation  with  you? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What,  if  anything,  do  you  know  about  Agnes  Smedley? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3061 

Mr.  Matusow.  We  distributed  and  sold  books  written  by  Agnes  Smedley  at 
the  Jefferson  School  book  shop  and  the  Workers  shop. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What,  if  anything,  do  you  know  about  Edgar  Snow? 

Mr.  Matusow.  His  book,  Red  Star  Over  China,  the  party  considered  one  of 
the  most  important  books  on  the  China  question. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What,  if  anything,  did  you  know  about  an  organization  known  as 
A  Committee  for  a  Democratic  Far  Eastern  Policy? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  was  informed  by  the  Jefferson  School,  during  the  summer 
of  1948,  through  Dave  Goldway,  that  a  lecturer,  namely,  James  Nesi,  would 
appear  at  the  summer  camp  for  a  period  of  one  week  to  discuss  China,  and  he 
would  represent  the  Committee  for  a  Democratic  Far  Eastern  Policy. 

I  know  Mr.  Nesi  personally  and  knew  him  to  be  a  member  of  the  Communist 

Party. 

During  that  week  when  Mr.  Nesi  lectured,  I  was  informed  that  the  Committee 
for  a  Democratic  Far  Eastern  Policy  was  a  Pro-Communist  group  run  by  Com- 
munist party  members.     Their  office  was  at  799  Broadway,  in  New  York  City. 

At  a  later  date  in  1949  I  had  visited  their  office  on  more  than  one  occasion — 
and  don't  remember  the  names  right  now,  but  knew  the  people  that  stalled  the 
office  to  be  members  of  the  Communist  Party. 

Two  of  them  in  particular,  who  were  secretaries  or  employees  of  that  organi- 
zation, had  attended  Communist  Party  youth  meetings  which  I  attended. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Was  799  Broadway  the  headquarters  of  other  Communist  organi- 
zations? 

Mr.  Matusow.  Yes.  One  in  particular  where  I  worked,  the  Labor  Youth 
League  and  the  Labor  Research  Association  was  also  at  the  offices  of  799 
Broadway. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  if  anything  do  you  know  about  the  Magazine  Guild  and 
its  parent  organization,  the  United  Office  and  Professional  Workers? 

"Mr.  Matusow.  I  was  a  member  of  that  organization  and  while 

Mr.  Mandel.  Just  let  me  interrupt  you,  if  you  please.     Of  which  organization? 

Mr.  Matusow.  The  United  Office  and  Professional  Workers  Union. 

Mr.  Mandel.  You  were  not  a  member  of  the  Book  and  Magazine  Guild?  That 
which  was  affiliated  with  the  United  Office  and  Professional  Workers? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  worked  very  closely  with  the  organizers  of  that  Book  and 
Magazine  Guild. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Will  you  tell  us  what  you  know  of  either  the  Book  and  Magazine 
Guild  or  the  United  Office  and  Professional  Workers? 

Mr.  Matusow.  My  contacts  with  the  United  Office  and  Professional  Workers 
Union,  of  which  the  Book  and  Magazine  Guild  was  part  of,  as  a  Communist 
Party  member  and  a  member  in  good  standing  of  the  United  Office  and  Profes- 
sional Workers  Union,  was  informed  by  the  organizers  of  the  United  Office 
and  Professional  Workers  Union,  such  as  Winifred  Norman,  Norma  Aaronson, 
Jack  Greenspan,  Aaron  Kramer,  Ethel  Beach,  and  also  by  Communist  Party 
organizers  such  as  Norman  Ross,  that  the  United  Office  and  Professional  Workers 
Union  was  staffed,  and  full-time  employees  had  to  be,  by  members  of  the  Com- 
munist Party.     That  included  the  Book  and  Magazine  Guild. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Does  the  name  of  James  S.  Allen  mean  anything  to  you? 

Mr.  INlATUSOW.  Yes.  James  S.  Allen  was  considered  one  of  the  party  theoreti- 
cians on  the  questions  of  minority  groups. 

I  believe  in  1937  he  wrote  a  book  called  The  Negro  Question  in  the  United 
States,  which  is  being  reprinted  now  by  the  Communist  Party. 

He  has  written  a  number  of  pamphlets — I  don't  recall  the  titles  of  those 
pamphlets — and  articles  in  magazines  such  as  Political  Affairs,  and  which  was 
distributed  by  the  Communist  Party. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Were  his  pamphlets  promoted  by  the  Jefferson  book  shop? 

Mr.  iMatusow.  That  is  correct,  and  they  were  published  by  the  Communist 
Party,  International  Publishers  or  New  Century  Publishers. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Was  New  Century  Publishers  an  official  Communist  publishing 
organization? 

Mr.  IMatusow.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Mandel.  What  does  the  name  of  Abraham  Chapman  mean  to  you? 

Mr.  Matusow.  The  name  is  just  familiar.     I  don't  know  him. 

Mr.  Mandel.  William  Mandel? 

Mr.  IMatusow.  Mr.  Mandel  had  lectured  at  Camp  Unity  in  the  summer  of  1949 
imder  the  auspices  of  the  Council  for  American-Soviet  Friendship.  And  there 
again,  at  Camp  Unity,  I  was  informed  by  the  State  Literature  Director  of  the 
Community  Party,  Ben  Bordofsky,  that  all  lecturers  at  camp  this  summer  "will 


3062  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

be  Communist  Party  members,  and  your  literature  distribution  in  relation  to 
those  lecturers  will  be  accordingly." 

Mr.  Mandel.  Mildred  Price? 

Mr.  Matusow.  I  don't  know  the  name. 

Mr   Mandel.  Thank  you  verv  much,  Mr.  IMatusow,  for  your  testimony  today. 

(Whereupon,  at  11 :  53  a.  m.,  Wednesday,  February  13,  1952,  the  hearing  was 
recessed  subject  to  the  call  of  the  Chair.) 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  May  we  see  it  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  It  is  the  testimonj^  of  Mr.  Matusow. 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  Could  I  read  it  at  luncheon ;  this  record  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  is  all  right. 

Did  you  ever  know  that  your  book  was  being  used  by  the  Commu- 
nists as  a  Communist  line  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir;  I  didn't.  I  believe  that  record  says  that 
they  used  it  for  background  reading. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Covering  the  Communist  Ime,  does  it  not  say 

that? 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  It  says  they  used  it  as  background  reading. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  heard  what  was  read. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  I  heard  it,  they  said  they  were  using  it  for 
background  reading. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  that  the  Communists  were  using 
your  Solution  in  Asia  as  background  reading? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  did  not.  _  •      •         'ii. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  it  was  in  line  with 
the  Communist  line? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  say  not. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Had  you  ever  heard  anyone,  outside  of  this 
witness,  saying  that  it  was  ?  •  •  j. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  parts  of  a  Communist  review  of 
Solution  in  Asia  were  introduced  into  the  record,  but  not  the  whole 

review. 

Senator  Ferguson.  This  record  makes  this  statement,  and  your 

counsel  can  check  it  at  noon : 

Things  are  moving  too  fast  for  them.  The  State  Education  Committee  got 
together  and  decided  which  books  would  be  good  background  material,  and 
which  supported  the  Communist  Party  line. 

Now,  did  you  ever  know  that  your  book  was  used  by  the  Communist 
State  Education  Committee  as  supporting  the  party  line  ? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  did  not. 
Senator  Ferguson.  And  then  at  another  place  they  say : 

They  came  out  with  a  decision — 

meaning  the  Communist  Party — 

that  Solution  in  Asia  was  one  of  those  books  which  could  give  a  Communist 
Party  member  a  correct  line,  a  Communist  line,  on  the  Asiatic  situation  in  China 
and  China  specifically. 

The  Chairman.  Your  question  is :  Did  he  know  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  not  know  that.     Might  I  amplify  that? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  like  to  have  you  amplify  that  you  did 

not  know  it. 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  would  understand  that  anybody  who  was  study- 
ing the  Far  East  at  that  time  might  read  various  books  for  background 
information,  and  anybody  could  use  a  book  like  that  to  twist  to  their 
own  purposes,  whatever  those  purposes  were. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3063 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  not  think  then  that 
people  may  be  justified  in  criticizing  your  book  as  following  the  Com- 
munist line  when  testimony  before  this  committee  from  an  employee, 
an  FBI  agent,  has  characterized  it  as  having  been  adopted  as  carry- 
ing out  the  party  line  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  Senator.  And  may  I  say  a  few  words  in  addi- 
tion to  that? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  I  do  think  that  such  an  interpretation  would 
be  entirely  unbalanced  unless  it  were  also  entered  into  the  record  that 
many  people  of  other  points  of  view  also  used  and  commented  favor- 
ably on  Solution  in  Asia. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  you  would  not  criticize  people  now  for 
following  what  this  witness  has  said  under  oath ;  would  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  criticize  anybody  who  took  a  single  opin- 
ion on  a  book  that  was  in  the  open  market  and  was  used,  quoted,  com- 
mented on  by  all  kinds  of  people  of  the  most  diverse  opinions. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Can  you  account  for  the  reason  that  the  Com- 
munists may  have  taken  this  book  as  background  for  the  problems  in 
Asia  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  can't. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have 
reached  a  point  where  we  can  recess  for  lunch. 

Senator  Smith.  May  I  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

On  page  2  of  this  summary  it  is  said,  where  he  quoted : 

Things  were  moving  too,  fast  for  them.  The  State  education  committee  got 
together  and  decided  which  books  would  be  good  background  material,  and 
which  supported  the  Communist  Party  line. 

Now,  I  inquire  as  to  whether  or  not  there  is  anything  in  that  record 
to  indicate  that  this  term,  "the  State  education  committee,"  refers  to 
an  official  organization  of  the  State,  wherever  it  was,  in  New  York, 
or  is  that  the  committee  of  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  The  antecedent  paragi'aph  shows  that,  I  think.  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  I  just  wanted  to  be  sure  what  it  is  referring  to. 

Mr.  Morris.  It  says:"*  *  *  in  the  terms  of  the  actual  literature 
of  the  Communist  Party,"  and  "Things  were  moving  too  fast  for 
them." 

Senator  Smith.  Is  that  referring  to  the  State  education  committee 
of  the  Communist  Party,  or  the  State  of  New  York,  or  what  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Of  the  Communist  party. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  we  have  reached  a  point  where  we  can  re- 
cess now  for  the  noon  recess,  and  we  wiU  reconvene  at  2  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  12:  55  p.  m.  the  hearing  was  recessed  until  2  p.  m. 
of  the  same  day.) 

after  recess 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman,  so  that  there  can  be  no  confusion 
in  the  record  as  to  the  witness  Harvey  M.  Matusow,  I  want  to  read 
in  relation  to  his  identification  with  the  FBI  from  the  record : 

In  the  summer  of  1950,  I  went  to  New  Mexico,  to  Taos,  N.  Mex.,  and  at  that 
time  I  had  contacted  the  FBI  and  was  furnishing  information  to  them,  and  still 
in  the  party,  furnishing  information  to  them  in  relation  to  the  party  activities 
near  Los  Alamos,  Taos,  N.  Mex. 


3064  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  May  the  record  show  that  that  is  the  only  passage  in 
the  transcript  that  refers  to  this  connection  with  the  FBI  ? 

Senator  I^'erguson.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  And  may  the  record  also  show  that  I  agree  that  certain 
parts  of  the  transcript  will  be  deleted? 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  has  no  reference  to  this  case. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  to  read,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  make  a  request,  Senator? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  make  a  request. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  wife  is  sitting  here  with  me  with  certain  sup- 
porting material  that  I  prepared  for  this  statement.  May  she  from 
time  to  time  hand  that  material  to  me  as  1  need  it? 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  think  that  that  should  be.  done  for  the 
purpose  of  implementing  your  answers.  You  should  make  your  an- 
swers, as  far  as  you  can,  and  then  if  you  ask  for  information  from 
anyone  that  is  connected  with  it,  it  will  be  granted. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  ask  a  short  series  of  ques- 
tions at  that  point? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  has  Mrs.  Lattimore,  to  your  knowl- 
edge, been  giving  advice  and  assistance  to  any  of  the  witnesses  before 
this  subcommittee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  to  call  it  advice  and  assist- 
ance. She  came  over  here  to  help  Mr.  Holland  somewhat,  before  he 
appeared  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Has  she  been  helping  any  other  witnesses  in  any 
way,  as  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Has  she  attended  a  number  of  our  hearings,  to  your 
knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  She  has  attended  a  number  of  hearings ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  knew  that  she  had  been  taking  notes  of  those 
hearings  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  what  she  did  with  those  notes  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  She  brought  them  home  and  showed  them  to  me. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  To  your  knowledge,  has  Mrs.  Lattimore  had  any 
contact  with  witnesses  before  this  subcommittee,  other  than  Mr. 
Holland? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  We  have  both  of  us  seen  Mr.  Carter. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  just  asking  about  Mrs,  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  rather  have  you  ask  her  yourself,  Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  am  asking  what  you  know. 

Mr.  Lattimoke.  Mr.  Sourwine,  my  mind  is  extremely  confused 
because  of  the  very  complicated  work  that  I  have  been  through  pre- 
paring this  statement  and  consulting  with  other  people  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  answer  the  question  yes  or  no  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  can't  answer  it  yes  or  no. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  record  shows  that  this 
witness  feels  that  he  is  not  competent  to  go  along,  as  I  understand  this 


i^^  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3065 

answer  here.  He  said  he  is  so  confused  with  the  work  he  has  been 
tlirough  preparing  this  that  he  might  not  be  responsible  for  his  an- 
swers. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  care  to  take  that. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  May  I  rephrase  the  question? 

Do  you  know,  Mr.  Lattimore,  w^hether  Mrs.  Lattimore  has  con- 
sulted with  any  witnesses  before  this  committee  before  they  have 
testified  here  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  state,  Mr.  Sourwine,  why  my  memory  is 
confused  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  moment.     That  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  cannot  answer  that  clearly.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is  do  you  know.  You  can  answer 
it  whether  you  know  or  not,  and  then  explain. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Has  she  consulted  with  any  of  the  witnesses  who 
have  appeared  here,  after  they  testified  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  amplify  my  previous  answer,  Mr.  Senator  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  explain  it,  not  amplify  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  explain  it  by  saying  that  these  hearings 
have  now  been  going  on  for  some  8  months.  During  the  course  of  that 
8  months,  both  my  wife  and  I  have  been  very  busy  making  notes, 
looking  up  references,  all  kinds  of  things,  and  for  that  reason  it  is 
not  at  all  clear  in  my  mind  what  persons  my  wife  may  have  seen  or 
consulted  with  before  their  hearings  or  after  their  hearings  in  the 
course  of  this  long  period. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  of  any  instances  in  which  Mrs.  Latti- 
more has  consulted  with  w^itnesses  who  appeared  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  recall  at  the  moment. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  you  advised  or  assisted  any  witnesses  before 
this  committee,  you  yourself? 

Tlie  Chairman.  That  is,  before  they  testified,  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Either  before  or  after,  in  connection  with  their  tes- 
timony here  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  talked  with  Mr.  Holland  and  Mr.  Carter. 
That  is  all  I  can  recall  at  the  moment,  because  there  may  be  others,  if 
you  would  name  some  others.  I  would  be  glad  to  answer  whether  I 
recall. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  you  consulted  and  advised  with  any  witnesses 
before  this  committee  after  they  had  begun  their  testimony  and  before 
they  had  concluded  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  ever  come  over  to  Washington  to  have 
conferences  with  witnesses  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  and  Mrs.  Lattimore  ever  have  conferences 
with  witnesses  before  this  committee  on  the  day  they  testified  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  On  the  day  they  testified?  My  wife  was  over  here 
and  saw  Mr.  Holland,  I  think,  on  the  morning  that  he  testified  here. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  that  your  complete  and  full  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion I  just  asked  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  as  full  as  I  can  make  it  at  the  moment. 


3066  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Can  you  say  that  you  and  Mrs.  Lattimore  did  not  on 
any  occasion  come  over  to  Washington  and  have  a  conference  with 
any  of  tlie  witnesses  before  this  committee  on  the  day  they  testified? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  couldn't  say  we  didn't. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  jou  think  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  sure.  If  I  were  allowed  to  consult  with 
my  wife,  I  could  probably  get  a  clearer  recollection. 

^Ir.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  ask  that  on  that  point  the  witness 
be  allowed  to  consult  with  his  wife  and  then  asked  to  answer  the 
question. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  She  doesn't  remember  any  such  occasions.  She 
thinks  it  could  only  have  been  Mr.  Carter  and  she  doesn't  remember 
consulting  with  him  here. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.    You  may  proceed. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  talk  with  Mr.  Clubb  before  or  after  he 
testified  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Clubb  before  he  testified  here, 
but  I  didn't  know  that  he  was  to  testify  here. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  confer  with  him  after  he  testified? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  talked  with  him  subsequent  to  his  testifying  here, 
but  I  don't  recall  whether  we  discussed  his  testimony  here  or  not. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Will  you  think  about  it,  whether  or  not  you  did 
discuss  with  him  his  testimony  before  this  committee? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  again  consult  my  wife  ? 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Was  she  with  you  when  you  were  talking  to 
him? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  she  would  have  been  there ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  does  not  interrupt  the  Senator — 
Mr.  Lattimore,  you  seem  to  have  the  impression  that  if  you  had  con- 
sulted and  advised  with  any  witness  before  this  committee,  it  was 
Mr.  Holland.  Apparently  after  talking  with  Mrs.  Lattimore,  as  you 
stated  she  thought  if  it  was  anyone  it  was  Mr.  Carter.  Could  it  have 
been  Mr.  Holland  and  Mr.  Carter  together? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  might  have  been,  but  I  don't  think  both  of  them 
togetlier. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  tell  us  anything  about  the  occasion  on 
which  you  might  have  consulted  with  Mr.  Carter  about  his  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  recall  precise  dates.  I  can't  recall  the  precise 
stage  which  the  hearings  had  reached.  I  do  remember  talking  with 
both  of  them,  though. 

Mr.  Sour"wtne.  Well,  if  you  had,  with  Mrs.  Lattimore,  made  a 
specific  appointment  and  met  with  Mr.  Carter  to  discuss  his  testimony 
l)efore  this  committee,  would  you  not  remember  it,  or  if  you  had  done 
so  with  Mr.  Holland  would  you  not  remember  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  seen  and  talked  with  so  many  people  in  the 
last  8  months,  on  the  general  subject  of 

The  Chairman.  You  can  answer  that.  Would  you  not  have  re- 
membered it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  necessarily,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  ever  have  dinner  with  Mr. 
Carter  and  Mrs.  Lattimore  at  the  conclusion  of  a  session  of  this  com- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3067 

niittee  at  which  Mr.  Carter  had  testified,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
with  him  the  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  wife  says  she  saw  him  at  the  time  of  his  hearing. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is :  Did  you  have  dinner  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  am  asking  about  you,  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  remember. 

Mr.  SoTJRwiNE.  Do  you  know  whether  you  had  dinner  on  the  night 
of  September  20,  1951,  which  was  the  date  on  which  Mr.  Carter  testi- 
fied before  this  committee? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  couldn't  tell  you,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  j^ou  not  have  dinner  at  the  Aldo  Cafe,  in  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Aldo  Cafe  ?    I  may  have,  I  don't  remember  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  where  that  cafe  is  ? 

JNIr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Mr.  Sour^vine.  Have  you  ever  eaten  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  tell  you. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  you  could  have 
•eaten  in  the  Aldo  Cafe  and  not  remember  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  quite  possible. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  if  there  is  anything  unusual  about 
the  cafe  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  that  it  is  a  cafe  that  has  a  tremendous 
grape  arbor  so  that  wherever  you  sit  at  the  tables  the  grapes  are  hang- 
ing about  a  foot  and  a  half  above  your  head  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  remember  such  an  arbor ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  remember  eating  in  that  cafe  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  remember  eating  there ;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  remember  the  occasion  on  which  you  were 
eating  there? 

ISIr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  Mr.  Carter  was  there. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  tell  us  who  else  was  there  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  have  grapes  and  Carter  mixed  up  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  can't  remember  anyone  else  there. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  say  there  was  no  one  else  there  besides  you 
.and  Mr.  Carter? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  say  so;  no. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  whether  Mrs.  Lattimore  was  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  do  you  not  know  she  was  there? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  Yes ;  she  was  there. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  From  your  own  recollection,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  from  my  own  recollection ;  I  am  sorry. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  Mr.  Lawrence  Ros- 
ino;er  was  there  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Might  be.  No ;  neither  of  us  remember  his  being 
there. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  that  your  recollection?  You  said  it  might  be, 
and  you  turned  to  Mrs.  Lattimore,  and  she  said  "No"  and  you  said 
■^'No."    What  is  your  recollection,  sir? 


3068  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  my  memory  is  not  built  of  the  struc- 
ture of  grape  vines. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  minute.  You  can  answer.  What  is  your 
recollection,  please  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  None ;  blank. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then  you  would  say  that  we  would  be  unable  from 
you  to  obtain  the  name  of  the  fourth  person,  if  there  was  a  fourth 
person  who  was  with  you  that  night  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Going  back  to  Mr.  Clubb,  do  you  remember 
your  conversation  with  Mr,  Clubb  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Before  he  appeared  here  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Either  before  or  after. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  remember  we  dropped  in  without  any  pre- 
vious planning  or  anything  to  call  at  the  Clubbs''  one  day  when  we 
were  over  here,  and  we  dropped  in  because  I  had  called  him  at  the 
Department  and  was  told  he  was  on  leave,  or  something  of  that  sort. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  saw  in  the  paper,  did  you  not,  that  he  had 
been  suspended? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  you  will  let  me  go  on  with  my  story,  Senator; 
after  receiving  this  reply  from  the  Department  of  State,  I  called  his 
house  and  he  said,  "Yes,  we  are  at  home.     Come  on  over." 

So  w^e  went  over  there,  and  he  told  us  that  he  had  been  suspended. 
We  then  saw  it  in  the  paper. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  after  he  testified,  did  you  have  a  conver- 
sation with  him  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  almost  certainly ;  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Vincent? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Before  or  after  he  testified  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Neither  before  nor  after. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Service  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  seen  Mr.  Service  occasionally  in  the  past  few 
months  in  connection  with  his  appearance  here  before  or  after,  I 
couldn't  specify. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  Mr.  Davies  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  Mr.  Davies. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  if  I  understood  you  correctly,  you 
stated  earlier  that  you  had  not  come  over  to  Washington  for  any  con- 
ference with  any  w^itnesses  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  recall. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  W^e  have  recalled  one  to  your  mind,  have  we  not, 
that  is,  the  occasion  on  which  you  had  dinner  with  Mr.  Carter  and 
Mrs.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  want  to  ask  you  if  you  can  recall  any  otlier  oc- 
casions on  which  you  had  conferences  with  witnesses  before  this 
committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  can't. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  say  there  were  no  other  occasions  on  which 
you  had  conferences  with  witnesses  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  can't. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3069 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Can  you  say  there  were  not  many  such  conferences  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  can't. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  No  more  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Lattimore,  to 
read  your  statement. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  distortions  by  your  witnesses  of  what  I  wrote  in 
1945  about  the  Japanese  Emperor  are  even  more  amazing.  Mr. 
Dooman  charged  that  I  had  been  opposed  to  using  the  Japanese  Em- 
peror as  an  instrument  of  American  policy  after  the  war,  as  if  Amer- 
icans who  opposed  keeping  pet  emperors  were  somehow  un-Americaji, 
and  Senator  Eastland  argued  that  Communists  wanted  to  overthrow 
the  emperor  because  "communism  and  monarchy  are  incompatible'' 
and  "Lattimore  understood  this." 

Mr.  Colegrove,  rising  to  the  occasion,  expressed  the  idea  much  more 
vividly,  saying  that  I  had  urged  that  the  Japanese  Emperor  "and  his 
whole  family  should  be  exterminated." 

But  Mr.  McGovern  excelled  even  Mr.  Colegrove  in  the  enormity  of 
his  accusations.  Under  prodding  and  leading  questions  from  Senator 
Eastland,  McGovern  elaljorated  his  distortions  of  my  opinions  about 
the  Japanese  Emperor  to  the  point  of  saying  that  I  "wanted  him  mur- 
dered," and  wanted  his  family,  including  "his  wife  and  children," 
treated  as  "among  the  worst  of  the  war  criminals,"  and  "turned  over 
to  the  Chinese  who  would  know  how  to  deal  with  him." 

This  ludicrous  "mishmash"  is  a  deliberate  garbling  of  the  opinion 
that  I  clearl}^  expressed  in  Solution  in  Asia,  in  1945,  that  after  the  war 
(not  as  "the  best  way  to  overthrow  Japan"),  the  Emperor  and  his 
family  should  be  interned  in  China,  under  the  supervision  of  the 
United  Nations.  This  suggestion  was  obviously  predicated  on  the 
assumption  that  there  would  be  a  strong,  stable  government  in  China, 
under  Chiang  Kai-shek,  and  that  China  would  be  one  of  the  Big  Five 
of  the  United  Nations.  It  was  also  predicated  on  the  assumption 
that  if  the  Emperor  was  not  made  a  martyr,  but  simply  removed  from 
circulation,  the  way  would  be  cleared  for  a  future  republic  in  Japan 
which  I  thought  would  favor  the  growth  of  a  democratic  system 
(Solution  in  Asia,  pp.  187-188). 

It  was  a  humane  suggestion,  made  at  a  time  when  many  people, 
inflamed  by  Japanese  atrocities  and  high  American  casualties,  were 
demanding  mass  exterminations,  just  as  a  few  fanatics  are  demanding 
now  that  we  get  rid  of  our  Russian  worries,  or  our  Chinese  worries, 
by  dropping  atom  bombs  indiscriminatelj^  and  wiping  out  women  and 
children  as  well  as  troops.  I  have  never  believed  in  or  advocated 
this  kind  of  bloodthirstiness. 

Others  (and  I  accuse  none  of  them  of  being  Communists)  wanted 
to  be  more  drastic.  For  instance,  Senator  Brien  McMahon  was 
quoted  in  the  New  York  Times  of  August  11,  1945,  as  saying,  "If 
the  Japs  are  allowed  to  keep  their  fantastic  god-emperor  system,  we 
may  get  an  armistice  and  not  an  end  to  the  war."  Maj.  Gen.  Claire 
Chennault  was  quoted  in  the  New  York  Times  of  August  30,  1945, 
as  declaring  that  our  greatest  potential  danger  was  in  leaving  the 
Japanese  Emperor  in  control,  and  saying  "There  will  either  be  a 
popular  revolution  headed  by  the  commercial  class  or  the  Mikado  will 
rebuild  the  old  structure  and  begin  new  conquests  at  a  future  date." 

On  September  18,  1945,,  Senator  Russell,  of  Geo^rgia,  supported  by 
Senators  Fulbright,  McClellan,  and  Taylor,  introduced  a  joint  reso- 

88348 — 52— pt.  9 12 


3070  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

hition  to  have  Emperor  Hirohito  tried  as  a  war  criminal  (S.  J.  Res. 
94,  Congressional  Record,  vol.  91,  p.  8680). 

I  have  here,  also,  quotations  from  others  who  wanted  to  get  rid  ot 
the  Emperor— including  Hanson  Baldwin,  Mayor  LaGuardia,  Otto 
Tolischus,  Brig.  Gen.  Carlos  Romulo,  Admiral  William  F.  Halsey, 
Senators  Wallace  H.  White,  Tom  Stewart,  William  Langer  and  Sun 
Fo  of  the  Chinese  Nationalist  Government— which  I  would  like  to  in- 
troduce into  the  record.  , .     ^,    .  q     tt 

Senator  Smith.  What  purpose  is  that,  Mr.  Chairman?  Here  are 
some  unsworn  statements  by  somebody  who  is  not  even  at  the  hearing. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  received  at  the  moment,  subject  to  a 
decision  by  the  committee. 

Mr  LA.TTIM0RE.  May  I  speak  to  your  remark.  Senator  ? 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  just  making  an  observation.  Neither  one  of 
those  men  are  here  to  be  subject  to  cross-examination.  You  have  put 
in  ex  parte  statements  from  them.  .  . .       .  x 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  make  an  observation  pertinent  to  your 

observation  ? 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  up  to  the  chairman.  _  .      ..     rr.. 

The  Chairman.  I  cannot  see  anything  to  raise  an  issue  about,  itie 
Chair  will  pass  upon  the  insertion  into  the  record.  ,       .     ^    ,. 

Mr.  L\TTiM0RE.  Against  this  background  it  sounds  rather  fantastic 
to  hear  Mr.  Colegrove  make  what  was,  for  a  political  scientist,  an 
extremely  rash  statement.  He  said  that  "extermmatmg"  the  Jap- 
anese Emperor  "has  always  been  the  Soviet  line."  I  must  confess  niy 
own  ignorance.  I  should  like  to  see  Professor  Colegrove  produce  the 
evidence  on  this  interesting  point.  .        i      ^     j      t-c 

On  the  subject  of  Japan,  I  don't  want  to  be  misunderstood,  if 
the  price  of  gaining  your  approval  is  that  I  forget  the  stab  m  the 
back  at  Pearl  Harbor,  that  I  forget  the  barbarous  depredations  ot 
Japan  in  China  and  other  countries,  and  that  I  subscribe  to  emperor 
worship,  then  the  price  is  one  that  you  will  not  get  from  me.  I  cannot 
forget  recent  history,  and  I  cannot  forgive  treachery,  whether  it  is 
made  in  America  or  in  Japan.  I  do  hope,  however,  that  Japan  will 
turn  her  back  on  her  recent  history,  that  she  will  become  a  decent 
member  of  the  family  of  nations,  and  that  the  Emperor  will  become 
a  ruler  on  the  model  of  the  English  constitutional  monarchy. 
Mr.  SouRWiNE.  :Mr.  Chairman^  may  I  ask  one  question? 
The  Chairman.  Yes.  ^  i         i 

Mr  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  in  the  light  of  your  present  knowl- 
edge, do  you  think  the  United  States,  was  wrong  m  not  eliminating 
the  Japanese  Emperor?  i    ^t 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  May  I  explain  that  by  adding  that  what  i 
recommended  on  the  subject  of  the  Japanese  Emperor  was  wntten 
before  the  end  of  the  war  when  it  was  expected  that  there  would  be 
a  bloody  last  stand  made  on  the  Island  of  Japan  itself  before  we 
secured  a  surrender,  and  that  therefore  the  political  aspects,  following 
the  conquest  of  Japan,  would  turn  out  to  be  quite  different  from  what 

it  actually  was.  i     i  -,      i    -i     x    n 

Actually,  tlie  Japanese .  snrrendered  before  we  had  landed  at  all. 
The  Emperor  took  part  in  the  surrender,  and  on  the  whole,  I  should 
say,  that  General  MacArthur's  handling  of  the  Emperor  was  con- 
ducted with  great  diplomatic  skill  and  statesmanship. 
Senator  Watkins.  May  I  ask  a  question  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3071 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Watktns.  You  saj'  "I  recommeiided."  To  whom  did  you 
make  a  recommendation  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  anybody  who  might  buy  my  book. 

Senator  Watkins.  Did  that  inchide  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  included  anybody  who  mightbuy  my  book. 

Senator  Watkins.  Is  that  the  only  recommendation  made? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  On  the  subject  of  the  Japanese  Emperor,  I  be- 
lieve that  is  absolutely  the  only  recommendation  I  made. 

Senator  Watkins."^  I  noticed  you  said  in  the  form  that  "I  recom- 
mended" and  that  was  the  reason  I  was  curious  to  know. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  "was  merely  referring  to  what  I  had  written 
in  Solution  in  Asia. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question  on  that.  You 
mentioned  again  the  Solution  in  Asia.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not 
you  knew  that  your  book.  Solution  in  Asia,  was  advertised  for  sale 
by  the  International  Book  Store,  1400  Market  Street,  San  Francisco  2, 

dalif. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  didn't  Imow  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  did  you  know  that  the  International  Book 
Store,  San  Francisco,  was  listed  by  the  Un-American  Activities  Com- 
mittee report  1947,  page  100,  "The  Communist  Party  book  center  in 
the  Bay  area  for  the  distribution  of  its  literature"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  didn't,  Senator,  and  in  fact  I  believe  I  had 
never  heard  of  the  International  Book  Store  until  this  moment. 

Senator  Ferguson.  We  talked  about  the  Daily  Peoples  World  this 
morning,  did  we  not,  and  you  had  heard  that  that  was  a  Communist 
newspaper? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  first  heard  of  that  at  the  time  of  the 
Tydings  hearings,  a  few  years  ago. 

Senator  Ferguson.  On  January  8, 1945,  in  the  Peoples  Daily  World, 
this  ad  appeared  under  "San  Francisco."  I  am  putting  that  in  in 
relation  to  the  witness'  testimony,  the  witness  who  testified  about  your 
book  being  used. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  the  first  time  I  have  seen  it. 

Senator  Watkins.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to  me  that  at  an  execu- 
tive session  I  took  some  time  ago  there  was  .some  testimony  on  that 
same  point.  It  seemed  to  me  there  was  an  FBI  agent  who  made  a 
statement  on  that. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  covered  this  morning. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  Senator  offering  this  for  the 
record  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes,  I  am.  But  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  listing  William  Z.  Foster's  book  in  the  same  ad. 

Do  you  know  William  Z.  Foster. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  who  wrote  Sabotage? 

Mr.  Lattimore..  No,  I  don't  know  that  book. 

Senator  Ferguson.  The  Plot  Against  Peace.  Do  you  know  whether 
that  was  by  Albert  Kahn  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  have  heard  of  that  book,  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So  your  book  was  advertised  with  Mr.  Foster, 
Mr.  Albert  Kahn,  and  the  Solution  in  Asia.     Do  you  think  that  might 


3072  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

confirm  the  man  who  testified  this  morning  that  it  was  being  used 
as  background  of  the  Communist  Party  for  their  party  linei' 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Senator,  I  have  already  stated  that  I  don't 
see  why  the  Communists 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  might  confirm?  That  is  the 
question.  Do  you  care  to  answer  that  "Yes"  or  "No,"  and  then  elab- 
orate, if  you  wish  ? 

Mr.  Lattimoei:.  I  can't  answer  that  question  yes  or  no,  Senator.  I 
don't  know  how  the  Communist  Party  operates  in  these  matters. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Have  you  ever  talked  to  any  Communists  in  rela- 
tion to  that  book '( 

Mr.  Lattjmore.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  arrange  for  any  price  reduction  for 
that  book,  to  Communists  or  Communist  book  stores? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  didn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  your  publisher 
did? 

Mr.  Latti3I0RE.  I  don't  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  he  ever  consult  you  about  reduction  in 
price  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't  think  I  was  ever  consulted  on  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Well,  will  you  think  about  it.  You  say  you 
didn't  think  so.  Will  you  think  a  moment  and  see  whether  or  not  you 
do  recall  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  not. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  this  is  offered  for  the  record,  it 
appears  to  be  a  photostat.  I  believe  Mr.  Mandel  prepared  this  photo- 
stat or  caused  it  to  be  prepared.  May  we  ask  Mr.  Mandel,  w^ho  has 
been  sworn  for  the  duration  of  these  hearings,  about  this? 

Mr.  Mandel,  is  that  a  photostat  which  you  caused  to  be  prepared? 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  What  is  it  a  photostat  of? 

Mr.  Mandel.  It  is  a  photosl:at  of  the  paper  called  the  Daily  People's 
World. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  It  is  a  photostat  of  a  portion  of  a  page  of  that 
paper,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes,  sir.    June  8.  1945,  page  5. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Being  the  display  ad  of  the  International  Book 
Store? 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Just  one  more  question  about  Mr.  Foster. 

Do  you  know  who  William  Z.  Foster  was,  that  is,  what  his  position 
was  in  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  Latiimore.  I  believe  he  was  at  one  time  one  of  the  leading 
Communists. 

Senator  Ferguson.  At  one  time.   Do  you  not  think  he  is  now  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Is  he  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  am  asking  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  thought  he  was  replaced  by  Browder  or  somebody. 

Senator  Ferguson.  When  did  that  happen?  When  did  you  hear 
that? 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3073 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Years  ago. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  he  was  indicted  as  one  of  the 
leading  Communists  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  answer  you  on  that.  I  know  that  people 
considered  the  leading  Communists  were  indicted,  biit  I  couldn't  tell 
you  anything  about  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  do  not  know  whether  William  Z.  Foster 
was  indicted  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  know  Albert  Kahn's  position? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  him  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  heard  of  him  in  connection  with  that  book 
that  you  have  just  referred  to. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  wrote  pro-Com- 
munist literature? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Other  than  that,  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Is  this  to  be  admitted.  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman,  That  will  be  admitted. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  as  "Exhibit  No.  471"  and  is 
as  follows:) 

Exhibit  No.  471 
[Daily  People's  World,  June  8,  1945,  p.  5] 

San  Francisco 
NEW  BOOKS  AT  INTERNATIONAL 

Organized  Labor  Faces  the  New  World  (by  Wm.  Z.  Foster),  5  cents :  Discusses 
the  growing  strength  of  organized  labor,  and  the  possibilities  for  advancement 
created  by  the  formation  of  the  World  Federation  of  Trade  Unions. 

The  Plot  Against  the  Peace  (by  the  authors  of  "Sabotage")  :  Deals  with  Nazi 
Germany's  secret  plans  for  a  Third  World  War  by  splitting  the  United  Nations. 

Solution  in  Asia  (by  Owen  Lattimore)  :  Mr.  Lattimore  deals  with  the  political, 
economic,  and  military  factors  affecting  developments  in  the  Far  East. 

International  Book  Store 

1400  Market  Street,  San  Francisco  2,  Calif. 

Free  mailing  to  all  parts  of  the  United  States 

Daily  People's  World  was  cited  as  the  "West  Coast  mouthpiece  of  the  Com- 
munist Party  *  *  *  published  by  the  Pacific  Publishing  Foundation,  Inc.,  in 
San  Francisco.  *  *  *  The  San  Francisco  office  is  located  at  590  Folsom 
Street  and  the  Los  Angeles  oflBce  is  at  206  South  Spring  Street."  (California 
Committee  on  Un-American  Activities,  Report,  1948,  p.  342.)  Guide  to  Subveb- 
sn-E  Organizations  and  Publications,  May  14,  1951,  House  Committee  on  Un- 
American  Activities,  page  131. 

international  bookstore,  SAN  FRANCISCO 

1.  "The  Communist  Party  book  center  in  the  bay  area  for  the  distribution  of  its 
literature."  (California  Committee  on  Un-American  Activities,  Report  1947, 
p.  100.) 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Does  the  Chair  desire  the  witness  to  go  ahead  with 
the  reading  of  his  statement  ? 

The  Chairman.  Go  ahead  with  the  reading  of  your  statement, 
please. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  suggest  that  the  record  would 
be  more  balanced 


3074  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 


I 


The  Chairman.  Never  mind  about  the  balance  of  it.     You  may 
roceed  with  the  reading  of  your  statement.     We  can  take  care  of  the 
„ahince.     Please  go  ahead  with  your  reading.     We  will  take  care  of 
the  balance  of  the  record.     That  is  our  obligation.     Please  go  ahead 
with  the  reading  of  your  manuscript  or  else  desist  from  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  4.  In  1919, 1  was  invited  by  the  State  Department 
with  about  30  other  people  to  take  part  in  a  discussion  of  far-eastern 
policy;  and  as  part  of  the  preparations  for  that  discussion  I  con- 
tributed— also  on  invitation — a  memorandum  of  my  views.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection  this  is  the  only  time,  in  more  than  25  years, 
that  the  State  Department  has  ever  asked  me  for  my  views. 

For  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the  far-eastern  policy  of  the  present 
administration,  and  presumably  to  keep  himself  in  the  newspapers 
as  a  perpetual  presidential  candidate,  Mr.  Harold  Stassen  has  at- 
tempted to  make  me  the  scapegoat  of  this  conference. 

Mr.  Stassen  accused  me  of  leading,  at  this  conference,  a  "prevailmg 
Lattimore  group"  which  advocated  a  Communist  line.  He  then  de- 
scribed a  "10-point  program"  which  he  claimed  I  had  advocated.  Mr. 
Stassen  obviously  did  not  expect  the  record  of  the  conference  would 
be  made  public. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  ask  leave  to  interrupt  the  witness  at  that 
point,  to  clarify  his  statement  in  that  regard? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mv.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you,  Mr.  Lattimore,  intend  by  that  sentence 

The  Chairjian.  What  sentence  is  that? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  "He  then  described  a  '10-point  program'  which  he 
claimed  I  had  advocated." 

The  Chairman.  You  w-ill  have  to  get  more  of  the  sentence  in  there. 

Mr.  SouRV/iNE.  That  is  the  full  sentence. 

The  Chairman.  It  refers  back  to  who  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Stassen. 

Do  you  intend  by  that  sentence,  Mr.  Lattimore,  to  make  the 
statement  that  Mr.  Stassen  claimed  that  you  alone,  as  an  individual^ 
advopated  a  10-point  program  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  sentence,  Mr.  Chairman,  should  be  taken 
in  conjunction  with  the  previous  sentence  in  which  there  is  the  ex- 
pression quoted  from  Mr.  Stassen  "prevailing  Lattimore  group."  _ 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Will  you  answer  the  question  directly,  please  ?  Did 
you  intend  by  that  sentence  to  make  the  charge  that  Mr.  Stassen  had 
stated  that  you,  as  an  individual,  had  advocated  a  10-point  program? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  He  described  me  as  one  of  the  individuals  who  had 
advocated  a  10-point  program. 

Mr.  SoxjRwiNE.  I  am  asking  about  your  intent,  sir.  Did  you  intend 
by  the  sentence  that  I  read  to  charge  that  Mr.  Stassen  had  stated  that 
you,  as  an  individual,  personally,  had  advocated  this  10-point  pro- 
gram ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  intention  was  to  quote  from  Mr.  Stassen  him- 
self, that  he  said  I  was  one  of  a  gi'oup  which  advocated  a  10-point 
program. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  did  not  quote  from  him  that  way,  did  you, 
Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  did.  He  accused  me  of  leading  at  this  con- 
ference a  prevailing  Lattimore  group.  Later  in  my  statement  I  come 
to  the  question  of  Mr.  Stassen  and  me  personally. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3075 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  As  a  matter  of  fact  you  know,  do  you  not,  that  Mr. 
Stassen  said  the  group  advocated  these  10  points;  that  he  explained 
what  he  meant  by  the  group,  and  that  he  did  not  at  any  time  say  that 
you  personally  had  avocated  all  the  10  points.    Is  that  not  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  Mr.  Stassen  repeatedly  made  statements  which 
would  convey  to  the  ordinary  member  of  the  public  reading  the  news- 
papers that,  as  a  member  of  the  group,  I  must  have  made  such  state- 
ments personally. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Are  you  then  charging,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  Mr^ 
Stassen  did  state  that  you  had  advocated  this  10-point  program  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  stating  that  Mr.  Stassen  conveyed  that  im- 
pression. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  Now  may  I  get  back  to  the  original  question,  sir. 

I  wish  we  could  have  a  yes  or  no  on  it.  Did  you,  by  the  use  of 
this  sentence  "He  then  described  a  '10-point  program'  which  he 
claimed  I  had  advocated"  mean  to  say  that  Mr.  Stassen  was  charging 
you  as  a  person  with  advocating  this  particular  10-point  program  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  With  advocating;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  your  intention  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRw^iNE.  And  will  you  now 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Which  he  claimed  I  had  advocated. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Will  you  now  tell  the  committee  from  what  part  in 
the  record  you  are  quoting  when  you  say  that  Mr.  Stassen  declared 
that  you  were  advocating  that  program,  as  an  individual? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  stated  "that  the  members  of  this  group  had  not 
differed  from  each  other." 

The  Chairman.  All  right.     Proceed  with  your  reading. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  please,  may  I  continue? 

Do  you  not  know,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  after  having  identified  the 
group  that  he  was  speaking  of,  after  having  said  there  were  two  leaders 
in  this,  one  perhaps  senior,  Mr.  Owen  Lattimore,  and  Mr.  Lawrence 
Rosinger,  they  were  the  leaders  in  the  discussion  of  the  prevailing 
group,  Mr.  Stassen  was  then  asked  if  he  would  in  a  concrete  way  set 
forth  some  of  recommendations  that  this  group  had  made  during  th& 
conference  and  he  stated  "The  group  that  was  led  in  the  discussion  by 
these  two  gentlemen  recommended  10  points  for  American  policy  in 
China  and  in  Asia." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  submit,  Mr.  Sourwine,  that  to  the  ordinary  reader 
that  would  convey  the  impression  that  I  had  made  some  of  the  state- 
ments. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  are  discussing  this,  then,  only  in  the  light  of 
what  you  consider  to  be  a  statement  by  Mr.  Stassen  that  you  as  a 
member  of  this  group  have  advocated  the  10-point  program  that  you 
speak  of? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  All  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  reading,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Accordingly,  he  let  his  imagination  run  riot  and 
attributed  to  me  all  the  opinions  expressed  at  this  conference  with 
which  he  disagreed,  and  some  that  he  just  imagined. 

As  soon  as  I  learned  of  Mr.  Stassen's  statements  I  appealed  to  the 
State  Department  to  release  the  full  record  of  the  conference.  I  pub- 
licly asked  Mr.  Stassen  to  join  me  in  this  request,  which  he  did  not  do.. 


3076  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

As  soon  as  I  could  obtain  a  transcript  of  my  remarks  I  released  it  to 
the  press,  and  later  the  full  transcript  of  the  entire  conference  was 
released. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  interrupt  ? 

Do  you,  Mr.  Lattimore,  take  credit  for  the  release  of  that  conference 
record  hj  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  you  referred  yesterday  somewhat 
disparagingly  to  my  ego,  but  I  think  in  this  case  I  can  claim  a  major 
part  of  the  credit  for  getting  that  transcript  released. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  do  no  think  there  is  any  question  about  it. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  do  you  know  that  this  committee  had  asked 
that  that  transcript  be  made  available  to  this  committee  long  before 
you  asked  that  it  might  be  made  public  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  know  that  it  was  denied  to  this  committee 
until  after  you  asked  that  it  be  made  public  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  didn't  know  that;  no.  I  may  have  heard  it  at 
one  time,  but  I  didn't  know  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  take  no  issue  with  the  statement  that  you  were 
largely  responsible  for  the  release  of  that  transcript. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  You  may  proceed  with  your  reading, 
Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  have  that  in  your  files,  and  I  ask  you  to  check 
it  against  what  I  say  here.  This  transcript  clearly  showed  that  I  had 
not  advocated  any  of  the  10  points  which  Mr.  Stassen  had  so  irrespon- 
sibly labeled  as  a  Lattimore  program.     His  10  points  were  as  follows : 

1.  Deferment  of  the  problem  in  Asia;  priority  for  Europe.  What 
I  said  was  that  the  problems  of  Asia  and  Europe  should  be  handled 
jointly. 

2.  No  United  States  aid-to- Asia  program  until  "after  long  study." 
I  did  not  suggest  "long  study."  I  said  that  we  could  attract  Asian 
countries  away  from  Russia  by  showing  that  friendly  association  with 
the  United  States  was  a  better  and  faster  way  of  obtaining  economic 
prosperity. 

3.  That  the  Russian  Communists  were  not  as  aggressive  as  Hitler. 
On  that  point  Mr.  Stassen  attributed  to  me  a  garbled  version  of  some- 
thing that  was  said  by  Mr.  George  Kennan,  of  the  State  Department. 

4.  Early  recognition  of  Red  China.  I  did  not  advocate  this.  I 
said  that  to  recognize  Red  China  in  haste  might  create  in  Asia  the 
impression  that  we  had  been  panicked ;  but  that  to  defer  recognition 
too  long,  if  the  Chinese  Communists  proved  that  they  were  there  to 
stay,  might  give  the  impression  that  we  had  been  baffled.  Inci- 
dentally, I  do  not  believe  that  we  should  recognize  Red  China  at  this 
time. 

5.  The  United  States  should  encourage  such  countries  as  Britain 
and  India  to  recognize  Red  China,  and  should  then  follow  with  its 
own  recognition. 

Senator  Ferguson.  IMr.  Lattimore,  when  yon  say  that  you  do  not 
recommend  that  we  should  recognize  China  at  this  time,  do  you  know 
of  anybody  that  would  recommend  that  we  recognize  Rsd  China  when 
we  are  figliting  a  war  with  her? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  While  we  are  fighting  that  war? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3077 

Senator  Ferguson.  Has  that  anything  to  do  with  your  recom- 
mendation ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  put  that  in  as  a  safeguard  against  being 
quoted  out  of  context. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Quoted  by  who? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  By  this  committee  or  the  press  or  anybody. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  think  that  this  committee  would  quote  you 
out  of  context? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  committee  has  quoted  me  out  of  context. 

Senator  Ferguson.  On  what  occasions  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can  give  you  one  occasion  when  Mr.  John  Carter 
Vincent  had  read  to  him,  I  believe,  or  had  shown  to  him,  a  passage 
from  Solution  in  Asia  dealing  with  what  I  represented  as  the  attitude 
of  the  Asian  peoples  on  the  frontier  of  China,  and  left  out  the  words 
"in  their  eyes"  in  such  a  way  as  to  misrepresent  me  as  believing  what 
I  said  other  people  thought. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  find  that  in  the  transcript? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  it  is  in  the  transcript. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  you  let  us  see  it  ? 

Mr.  Sour"\vine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  the  question  was,  Did  you  find  that 
in  the  transcript?  It  is  perfectly  obvious  from  the  way  you  turned 
around  to  Mrs.  Lattimore  that  you  did  not.     Is  that  not  true? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  was  turning  around  to  see  if  we  had  a  copy 
of  tliat  part  of  the  transcript  with  us. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  find  it  in  the  transcript? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  did. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  checked  the  transcript. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to 
the  fact  that  there  was  something  in  the  way  of  an  omission  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  think  it  could  have  been  an  omission,  or 
do  you  want  to  now  cite  it  as  bad  faith  upon  the  part  of  the  committee? 

Mr.  Lattuviore.  That  particular  quotation  has  been  used  against  me 
so  often,  and  I  have  protested  against  it  so  often,  that  when  I  en- 
counter it  now  I  can  hardly  avoid  the  assumption  that  it  is  deliberate 
misquotation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  mean  that  it  has  been  quoted  before  with 
this  omission? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  it  has. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Who  quoted  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  ask  if  we  have  a  record  of  it? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  we  would  like  to  have  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator  McCarthy  quoted  it,  and  I  can  produce 
that  quotation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  wish  you  would,  for  the  record. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  Miss  Freda  Utley  quoted  it,  and  I  can  produce 
that  quotation. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  How  about  producing  the  quotation  that  you 
charged  the  committee  made  out  of  context? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  soon  as  I  can  get  hold  of  the  copy  of  the  tran- 
script, Mr.  Sourwine,  I  will  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  your  reading  for  the  time  being. 


3078  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  5.  The  United  States  should  encourage  such  coun- 
tries as  Britain  and  India  to  recognize  Red  China,  and  should  then 
follow  with  its  own  recognition.  There  is  nothing  like  this  in  the 
transcript. 

6.  That  it  should  be  United  States  policy  to  turn  Formosa  over  to 
i;he  Chinese  Communists.     I  did  not  mention  Formosa. 

7.  That  it  should  be  our  policy  to  permit  the  Chinese  Communists 
to  take  Hong  Kong.  Although  "Mr.  Stassen  said  this  was  one  of  the 
"hot  arguments"  of  the  conference,  the  only  mention  of  Hong  Kong  in 
the  entire  conference  was  by  Mr.  Butterworth  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment, who  had  merely  said,  "The  British  have  not  sought  any  par- 
ticular assistance  through  us  for  the  defense  of  Hong  Kong."  Mr. 
Stassen  himself  also  referred  to  Hong  Kong,  but  there  was  no 
"argument." 

8.  That  Premier  Nehru  had  shown  reactionary  and  arbitrary  ten- 
dencies. I  did  not  speak  on  the  subject  of  India,  nor  mention  Nehru, 
for  whom  I  have  always  had  the  highest  regard  and  whom  I  consider 

"the  outstanding  representative  of  freedom  in  Asia. 

9.  That  tlie  United  States  should  not  approve  the  Nationalist 
blockade  of  the  Chinese  Communist  coast,  and  should  send  economic 
aid  to  Communist  areas.    I  did  not  say  this. 

10.  That  no  aid  should  be  sent  to  the  non-Communist  guerillas, 
nor  to  the  Chiang  Kai-shek  forces.    I  said  nothing  of  this  sort. 

In  his  second  hearing,  after  the  full  record  had  been  released,  Mr. 
Stassen  backtracked.  He  did  not,  of  course,  admit  error.  That  would 
have  been  out  of  character  for  a  Presidential  candidate.  He  attempted 
to  cover  up  by  quoting  some  member  of  what  he  had  labeled  the 
"Lattimore  group"  (who,  he  said,  had  "not  differed"  from  each  other) 
in  support  of  each  of  his  10  points.  He  quoted  me  in  connection  with 
only  1  of  the  10,  and  that  in  a  way  to  distort  my  meaning. 

Confronted  with  the  absurd  discrepancies  between  the  kind  of  con- 
ference that  he  had  pretended  to  describe  and  the  kind  of  conference 
that  was  revealed  when  the  full  transcript  was  finally  published, 
Stassen  tried  to  escape  by  doing  acts  on  the  flying  trapeze,  as  if  he 
were  a  road-show  McCarthy  swinging  through  the  air  with  the  great- 
est of  ease  from  "205  names"  to  "57"  names  and  all  the  rest  of  it.  In- 
stead of  continuing  to  claim  that  I  was  the  leader  of  the  group  because 
I  advanced  all  or  any  of  their  10  points,  the  only  reason  he  could  now 
give  for  calling  me  and  Mr.  Lawrence  Rosinger  its  "leaders"  was  that 
we  had  done  most  of  the  talking;  although  even  this  was  not  the  case. 

Wliatever  agreement  there  was  between  Mr.  Rosinger  and  me  was 
purely  accidental.  I  know  Mr.  Rosinger  only  very  slightly  and  had 
had  no  discussion  with  him  on  any  of  these  matters  either  before  or 
during  the  conference.  Our  contributions  to  the  discussion  happened 
to  be  on  different  subjects,  except  on  the  matter  of  the  recognition  of 
Red  China  and,  since  we  differed  markedly  on  this,  there  was  not 
even   anything  which  could  be  termed   agreement  between  us. 

On  the  subject  of  the  recognition  of  China,  Mr.  Rosinger  advocated 
recognition  as  "early  as  possible,"  within  "perhaps  3,  6,  maybe  9 
months,"  whereas  I  pointed  out  that  there  could  be  serious  disad- 
T^antages  either  in  a  hasty  recognition  of  the  Red  regime,  or  in  delay- 
ing recognition  too  long. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3079 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness 
-whether  he  thinks  that  the  quoted  statements  there,  his  own  and  Mr. 
Rosinger's,  are  actually  different  or  whether  his  own  statement  is 
only  more  palatable? 

Mr;  Lattimore.  I  think  my  statement  is  entirely  different. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.'Mr.  Rosinger,  within  "perhaps  3,  6,  maybe  9 
months."  You  were  urging  that  recognition  be  not  delayed  too  long. 
Wliat  is  the  difference? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  One  of  the  differences  is  that  I  have  here  simply 
boiled  down  what  I  actually  had  to  say  on  the  subject,  and  one  of 
the  things  that  I  had  to  say  on  the  subject  was  that  any  question  of 
recognition  of  China  should  be  considered  only  in  conjunction  with 
a  number  of  other  moves  on  policy  in  Asia.  I  don't  believe  that  point 
was  taken  up  by  Mr.  Rosinger  at  all. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  The  discussion  of  the  whole  question  of  what  you 
said  can  well  be  saved  for  a  later  date.  But  I  was  endeavoring  to  find 
out  whether,  on  the  basis  of  what  you  had  seen  fit  to  quote  here,  you 
felt  that  there  was  a  contradiction  between  what  Mr.  Rosinger  had 
urged,  and  what  you  were  urging, 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  think  there  is  a  distinctive  difference. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  think  they  are  contradictory  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  contradictory,  in  that  context,  Mr.  Sour- 
wine,  is  a  rather  trick  word. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  I  understand  the  witness  is  accusing  the 
counsel  of  trying  to  trick  him  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes ;  and  it  has  been  going  on  right  along.  ^  Answer 
that  question.  You  can  answer  it  yes  or  no.  Do  you  think  it  is  con- 
tradictory ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  my  position  was  contradictory  of  Rosinger's? 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  of  the  witness  will  be  stricken  from 
the  record  as  regards  the  question  being  tricky. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  I  am  sorry,  Mr.  Senator.  I  still  think  it  was 
a  tricky  question. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  stricken  from  the  record  also.  Now 
if  you  will  answer  the  question  we  will  get  along. 

ikr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  the  question  is  not  susceptible  to 
answer  in  terms  of  the  word  "contradictory." 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.    Go  on.    Go  on  with  your  reading. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  fact  that  in  October  1949,  many  responsible, 
well-informed  and  patriotic  men  believed  that  it  would  be  sound  pol- 
icy to  recognize  the  new  government  in  China.  To  hold  that  belief  was 
not  in  the  slightest  unpatriotic  or  subversive.  Wlien  the  British  Gov- 
ernment recognized  the  Red  government  of  China,  there  was  no  ap- 
preciable Tory  opposition,  and  the  present  conservative  government 
confirms  that  policy  today.  I  hold  it  against  no  man  that  he  took 
that  position  at  that  time.  I  freely  admit  that  I  was  not  crystal-clear 
in  my  own  mind  then  as  to  the  best  course  of  action.  _  If  I  myself,  at 
that  confernece,  had  advocated  the  recognition  of  China,  I  should  not 
"be  in  the  least  ashamed  of  it.  But  on  the  point  of  relevant  fact,  the 
record  shows  that  I  did  not.  It  would  be  more  accurate  to  accuse  Mr. 
Rosinger  of  conniving  with  Mr.  William  R.  Herod,  president  of  the 
General  Electric  Co.,  Mr.  William  S.  Robertson  of  the  American  & 
Foreign  Power  Co.,  and  J.  Morden  Murphy,  vice  president  of  the 


3080  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Bankers  Trust  Co.  All  of  these  men  advocated  recognition  at  that 
time,  as  the  transcript  shows.  I  present  for  your  record  quotations 
from  these  and  other  men  who  advocated  recognition  of  Red  China. 

Mr.  SoTJRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  that  point,  the  entire  transcript 
of  the  proceedings  of  that  State  Department  conference  is  in  the 
record  of  this  committee,  as  printed  in  volume  5. 

I  should  like  at  this  time  to  tender  to  Mr.  Lattimore  and  his  counsel, 
and  Mrs.  Lattimore,  the  committee  copy  of  the  record  of  Vincent's 
testimony. 

I  am  still  interested  in  having  IVIr.  Lattimore  identify  the  particular 
quotation  which  he  says  was  printed  improperly. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  presented  to  the  witness.^  Mrs.  Latti- 
more is  not  a  witness  before  this  committee,  and  neither  is  his  counsel. 
It  will  be  presented  to  the  witness. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  I  beg  the  C'hair's  pardon. 

The  Chairman.  If  the  witness  AA-ants  to  refer  to  his  counsel  or  any- 
one else,  that  is  his  business. 

Mr.  Fortas.  Do  you  want  us  to  have  Mr.  Lattimore  look  at  this 
now  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  FerPtUSon.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  this  time,  while  we  are  on 
that  particular  record,  I  want  to  offer  into  the  record,  back  at  the  time 
we  put  in  this  ad  from  the  International  Book  Store,  the  remarks  of 
the  report  of  1948,  page  342,  Guide  to  Subversive  Organizations  and 
Publications,  on  May  14,  1951,  House  Committee  on  Un-American 
Activities,  page  131. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  go  in  in  connection  with  the  other  offer? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  with  the  ad. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

I  think  you  are  going  to  take  up  considerable  time  here,  in  having 
the  witness  look  up  through  the  labyrinth  of  testimony.  _ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  have  some  assistance,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  I  think  probably  it  would  be  well  to  defer  the  mat- 
ter until  a  later  date. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  all  right  with  me. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  am  sorry,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  want  to  say  that  I  understand  a  request  was  made 
for  a  continuation  of  the  hearing  by  Mr  Fortas. 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  had  engagements  Satur- 
day and  Sunday  out  of  town,  that  it  would  be  possible  for  me  to  fly 
back  and  get  here  Monday  morning,  but  it  would  be  very  difficult,  in- 
deed.   But  I  could  get  back  Wednesday  morning. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  deferring  other  committees.  I  have  put 
over  the  Appropriations  Committee  today  in  order  to  be  here.  I  am 
going  to  put  over  the  Judiciary  Committee  on  Monday  in  order  to  go 
on.  We  just  must  go  through  with  it  to  a  conclusion.  I  am  sorry  to 
say  that  we  just  cannot  accommodate  you  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  Fortas.  I  should  say.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  made  the  other 
arrangements  on  the  basis  of  Mr.  Moi-ris'  kind  statement  to  me  that 
the  committee  would  have  to  finish  by  Friday  night.    Is  that  not  true? 

Mr.  Morris.  No,  I  did  not,  Mr.  Fortas.  1  said  that  we  had  a  hear- 
ing scheduled  for  Monday,  and  I  gave  as  the  reason  why  we  could  not 
begin  on  Wednesday  as  you  suggested  the  fact  that  we  would  have  to 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3081 

finish  this  week  this  hearing  because  of  the  other  engagement  on  Mon- 
day. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  That  is  what  I  tried  to  say,  briefly  though. 

Mr.  JMoRBis.  That  made  no  mention  of  Friday. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  You  said  this  week. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  did. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  As  I  understand  it.  the  chairman  is  now  suggesting 
that  we  go  on  Monday. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  go  on  with  this  hearing  because  the  Sen- 
ator from  Michigan  here,  who  is  i  member  of  the  Appropriations 
Committee,  and  also  other  Senators,  are  detained.  We  just  have  to 
conclude  this  so  as  to  go  on  to  other  work. 

Today  I  had  to  adjourn  the  Appropriations  Committee  so  as  to 
come  back  here.  1  am  sorry  to  say  that  our  condition  is  such  that  we 
just  cannot  always  accommodate  the  May  we  would  like  to  accommo- 
date. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  suggest  that  we  hold 
the  hearing  on  Saturday  also  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir,  we  will  be  here  on  Saturday  also. 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  for  me  to  go  and  be  here 
on  Saturday. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  have  some  other  member  of  your  firm  here. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  There  is  no  one  else  who  is  considering  this  case,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  sorry  not  to  be  able  to  accommodate  you,  but 
the  work  is  so,  here,  that  we  just  have  to  put  in  every  hour,  as  you  may 
see  since  you  have  been  up  here,  as  you  know  without  being  told  of  it. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  know,  Senator,  but  I  did  make  this  engagement  on 
the  basis  of  what  I  understood  Mr.  Morris  to  say,  and  I  cannot  cancel 
it. 

Mr.  Morris.  There  was  no  mention  that  we  would  not  have  any- 
thing on  Saturday. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  understood  you  to  say  Friday  night.  If  I  misunder- 
stood you,  I  am  sorry. 

The  Chairman.  I  wish  I  could  accommodate  you,  Mr.  Fortas.  I 
am  sincere  in  that;  but  it  just  cannot  be  done;  that  is  all  there  is 
to  it.    You  have  other  members  of  your  firm. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  I  do  have  other  members  of  my  firm,  but  there  is  no- 
body who  is  familiar  with  this  matter.  However,  you  will  have  to  give 
me  a  little  time. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  have  to  deny  your  request,  that  is  all.  I  am 
sorry  to  do  it. 

I  do  not  think  we  should  delay  the  committee  to  look  up  something 
through  that  record  at  this  time.    I  would  like  to  go  on. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  addition  to  the  statements  on 
the  subject  of  the  recognition  of  Red  China,  at  this  conference  that 
we  were  discussing,  I  have  some  supplementary  statements  in  favor 
•of  that  at  the  same  time  which  I  desire 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  know  what  question  you  are  addressing 
this  to. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  addressing  this  to  the  point  in  my  statement 
where  I  say  "I  present  for  your  record  quotations  from  these  and 
other  men  who  advocated  recognition  of  Red  China." 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  You  may  proceed  and  present  that,  and 
the  Chair  will  pass  on  it.    We  will  go  over  it. 


30S2  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

I  may  say  to  you  that  I  am  going  to  pass  on  these  things  as  to  whether 
or  not  they  are  material  or  in  line  with  the  hearing.  I  am  gomg  to 
pass  on  them  just  as  soon  as  I  can. 

(For  the  material  referred  to  see  exhibit  47 <  which  appears  on  p. 

3T03  of  appendix  I,  pt.  10.)  ^  ,  -,.-,1.1,^^1,1 

Mr  Lattimore.  A  member  of  this  committee  did  his  best  to  help 
Mr  Stassen  As  "evidence,"  Mr.  Stassen  cited  the  fact  that  I  made 
the' not  very  brilliant  or  original  remark  that  there  was  a  "new  situa- 
tion" in  Asia.  "That  meant  the  recognition  of  Communist  China, 
doesn't  it  ?''  asked  Senator  .Smith,  eagerly  coming  to  his  aid.  "That  i& 
right,"  said  Stassen.  i     -n    x- 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  know  why  Professor 
Lattimore  has  put  in  the  words  "eagerly  coming  to  his  aid." 

What  is  the  basis  for  any  such  statement  as  that,  Mr.  Lattimore  i 
Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is 'the  impresson  I  got  from  reading  the  tran- 

^^  Senator  Smith.  Is  there  anything  in  the  transcript  that  reads  that? 
That  is  another  part  of  your  imagination.  I  guess  you  got  that  from 
your  epidermis  that  you  referred  to  yesterday,  the  feeling.      . 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Whv  are  you  justified  m  saying  that  i 

Mr.  Latcimore.  I  think  that  Mr.  Stassen  had  made  a  not  at  all  con- 
vincing statement  and  that  he  received  immediate  support. 

Senator  Smith.  I  asked  the  question.  According  to  what  you  said,, 
that  meant  the  recognition  of  Communist  China,  does  it  not  ?  That  is 
a  question,  is  it  not? 

Mr  Lattimore.  It  is  a  question  and  it  is  a  leading  question. 

Senator  Smith.  Maybe  it  is  leading,  but  why  do  you  say  I  was 
eagerly  coming  to  his  aid?  . 

Mr. "Lattimore.  Because  my  impression  was  that  it  was  a  leading 
question,  and  for  the  purpose  of  leading  him  to 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  have  any  reason  on  earth  why  1  should 
want  to  come  to  Mr.  Stassen's  aid? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  None ;  except  the  impression  I  have  here. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  just  your  imagination  at  work;  is  it  not? 

Mr  Lattimore.  My  interpretation  of  a  written  text,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  There  is  nothing  in  that  text  that  says  anything. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Of  course,  Mr.  Lattimore,  it  is  also  trying  to 
infer  that  the  Senator  did  it  in  bad  faith.  Is  not  that  what  you  wanted 
to  convey  to  the  public? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  why  did  you  use  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  is  no  implication  of  bad  faith. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  why  did  you  use  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  indication  is  that  this  was  a  statement  that 
might  be  strengthened  to  imply  the  recognition  of  Communist  China 
and  Senator  Smith  had  helped  Mr.  Stassen  to  make  that,  to  carry  that 

inference  further.  ^  ^     -,   o  ^^^      ^  4. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  accuse  Stassen  of  bad  faith,  do  you  not, 

in  that  record  ?  ^         ,-,  .  .i 

]Mr.  Latttmore.  No,  I  don't  accuse  Stassen  of  anything  more  than 

j  ust  trying  to  get  on  in  the  world. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  not  of  bad  faith  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3083 

Mr.  LAi^riMORE.  Not  of  bad  faith,  no,  just  trying  to  get  on  in  the 
world. 

Senator  Smith.  You  think  then  that  any  time  a  committee  member 
asks  a  question  to  clear  up  the  statement  of  a  witness,  that  that  is 
eagerly  helping,  for  the  witness  that  you  referred  to,  eagerly  coniing 
to  his  aid.  That  is  what  you  said,  did  you  not  ?  And  you  said  it  with- 
out any  foundation. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  That  is  simply  my  impression  on  reading  the 
transcript.     If  I  misinterpreted  you,  I  would  be  glad  to  change  it. 

The  Chaiemax.  You  are  making  that  a  part  of  your  oath  here,- 
bef ore  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  'V\'liat,  this  statement  here  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  certainly. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Surely. 

Senator  Smith.  We  might  ask  him  to  prove  that  now.  I  think  that 
would  make  a  good  point. 

The  Chairman.  We  might  have  to  go  into  your  mental  processes 
in  order  to  find  out  if  you  were  eager. 

Senator  Smith.  That  just  goes  to  show,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  totaL 
irresponsibility  of  this  witness'  statements,  without  foundation. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  say  you  did  not  accuse  Mr. 
Stassen  of  bad  faith. 

The  Chairman.  He  said  so.    He  testified  to  it  here  today. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  want  to  go  back  on  page  32,  where  you  ac- 
cuse him,  that — 

Stasseii  tried  to  escape  by  doing  acts  on  the  flying  trapeze,  as  it  he  were  a  road- 
show McCarthy  swinging  through  the  air  with  the  greatest  of  ease  from  "205 
names"  to  "57"  names — 

and  all  the  rest  of  it.  You  mean  that  that  sentence  does  not  infer 
bad  faith. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  sentence  infers  great  agility. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  pretend  as  a  scholar  and  as  a  teacher 
in  a  college  that  your  answer  is  an  answer  to  the  question  that  I  asked  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  proceed  with  your  reading.  Everybody 
is  in  bad  faith,  excepting  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Senator  Smith.  That  seems  to  be  the  case. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  How  much  more  silly  can  the  part-time  president 
of  a  great  university  get  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Now,  who  are  you  talking  about  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Stassen. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  have  been  talking  about  a  Johns  Hopkins  pro- 
fessor, and  I  wondered  whether  or  not  you  had  come  into  that. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  How  much  more  silly  can  the  part-time  president 
of  a  great  university  get  ? 

Senators,  if  you  are  really  interested  in  the  future  of  our  country — 
and  I  am  sure  that  you  are — you  will  look  into  your  minds  and  hearts 
and  try  to  find  the  answer  to  the  real  and  shocking  question,  "Why 
does  a  man  of  Stassen's  stature  engage  in  irresponsible  and  false  ac- 
cusations of  pro-Communist  views?  Is  this  committee  lending  itself 
to  tlie  encouragement  of  such  destructive  activities  by  the  politically 
ambitions,  the  fellow-travelers  of  witch-burning,  the  insecure,  and  the 
vain  and  ambitious?" 


3Qg4  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  say  that  is  not  charging  Mr.  Stassen  with  bad 

faith? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir.  .  , 

The  Chairman.  He  is  charging  him  with  perjury.    Whether  that 

is  bad  faith  or  not,  I  do  not  know.  i   •      .u  ^  •      i    ^„;„„ 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  claim  that  is  charging 

him  with  good  faith  ?  ,        .       ,  .  •      i       i       i.  j-„ j 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  claim  that  is  charging  him  as  is  clearly  stated 

here,  with  irresponsibility.  ,     .  ^  -.i      i       i     j        -4.    „^„„ 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  that  is  not  bad  faith  when  he  does  it  under 

^^Mr.  Latiimore.  Senator,  you  are  a  lawyer.  You  would  have  to  de- 
fine that.     I  can't.  .,     ..  •  19 

Senator  Ferguson.  Then  why  did  you  use  it— it  is  your  word  i 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  used  the  term  "irresponsible."  ..     .  .  ■^■.9 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  say  that  is  accusing  him  ot  bad  taith? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  it  is  not  accusing  him  of  bad  faith. 

The  Chairman.  All  right;  go  ahead. 

Mr  Sour^vine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  think  that  a  witness,  or  any 
other  person,  can  use  words  of  invective  and  then  escape  their  legal 
effect  by  claiming  that  they  have  no  knowledge  of  their  legal  ellect^ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine- 

The  Chairman.  Just  answer  that  "Yes"  or  "No,"  and  we  will  see 

where  we  will  get.  .  ,  ,       ^  •   „ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  answer  is  that  I  am  incapable  ot  answering 

that  question.  •      t  i       tt 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Lattimore,  are  you  a  teacher  in  Johns  ±iop- 

Mns? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  Of  what  institution  are  you  a  graduate  ( 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  a  graduate  of  any  institution. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a  graduate  of  any  high  school  even? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  finished  my  studies  at  a  school  m  England 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  graduate  from  high  school  ?    Can  you  not 

answer  that  question  ?  •   .  1         . 1    j.  t 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  just  want  to  make  a  point  here  that  i 

went  to  school  in  England  where  they  do  not  graduate. 

The  Chairman.  Please  answer  the  question.    Did  you  ever  graduate 

from  high  school  ?    You  can  answer  that  "Yes"  or  "No." 
Mr.  Lattimore.  All  right,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  answer?  ,      ,      -r 

Mr  Lattimore.  I  didn't  graduate  from  a  high  school.    I  went  to 

school  in  England;  I  left  school  at  the  age  of  19  and  there  wjis  no 

such  thing  as  graduation  ceremonies  or  diploma  or  anything  ot  that 

Tlie  Chapman.  Did  you  ever  graduate  from  a  grammar  school? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  . 

Senator  Jenner.  Mr.  Chairman,  along  that  line,  while  we  are  on 

that  subject ,     ,    ,  ,  •       •    .i  ^- 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  I  asked  that  question  is  the  apparent 
desire  of  this  witness  to  avoid  the  consequences  of  his  own  statements 
by  saying  that  he  does  not  understand  the  statement,  after  it  has 
been  brought  to  his  attention. 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3085 

Senator  Jenner.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  the  witness  a  question 
along  that  line  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  on  your  statement  there  I  have  no 
desire  whatever  to  escape  any  responsibility  for  what  I  have  said. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  care  what  your  desire  is, 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  stand  by  every  word  that  I  have  written  in 
this  statement.  Wliat  I  am  declining  to  do  is  to  accept  legalistic  para- 
phrasers  and  rephrasings  of  what  I  have  said  in  terms  which  I  do  not 
understand. 

Senator  Smith.  Maybe  I  can  understand  it.  Let  me  ask  you  about 
this:  On  the  bottom  of  that  paragraph,  you  refer  to  "the  fellow 
travelers  of  witch  burning."  Who  are  you  talking  about  there  ?  Can 
you  tell  us  who  you  are  referring  to  there  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  should  say  that  Mr.  Stassen  at  that  moment  was 
fellow  traveling  along  with  Senator  McCarthy,  and  I  should  say  that 
Senator  McCarthy  is  a  graduate  witch  burner. 

Senator  Jenner.  May  I  ask  a  question,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  Smith.  Those  are  the  only  ones  that  you  refer  to  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Those  are  the  only  ones  that  I  have  at  the  moment. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  suppose  you  are  not  imputing  bad  faith  in 
that  answer  that  yau  made  about  Senator  McCarthy  and  Mr.  Stassen  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  there  is  a  difference  there. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  think  that  is  bad  faith? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  there  is  a  difference  between  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy and  Stassen.  I  think  Mr.  McCarthy  is  capable  of  bad  faith. 
I  think  Mr.  Stassen  is  just  too  slippery.  That  is,  the  question  of  bad 
faith  and  good  faith  probably  doesn't  alarm  him. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  say  you  are  an  academic  specialist  on  the 
Far  East? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Jenner.  We  should  like  to  know  when  you  are  speaking 
as  an  academic  expert  and  when  you  are  expressing  the  opinions  of  a 
private  citizen.. 

I  will  ask  you  this  question :  Are  you  an  expert  on  politics,  eco- 
nomics, geography,  or  military  science  ? 

The  Chairman.  On  either  of  those,  is  that  what  you  mean.  Sen- 
ator? ' 

Senator  Jenner.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  primarily  on  any  of  those. 

Senator  Jenner.  Then  what  academic  degrees  do  you  have? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  none. 

Senator  Jenner.  He  says  he  is  an  academic  expert,  but  he  has  no 
degrees. 

Senator  Smith.  I  believe  he  does  have  some  honorary  degrees. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  said  you  were  an  academic  expert  on  the  Far 
East.  I  asked  you  what  academic  degrees  you  hold  and -you  said 
"None." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Jenner.  That  is  all  I  want,  Mr.  Chairman.  He  has  an- 
swered my  question. 

The  Chairman.  Go  on  with  the  reading. 

88348— 52— pt.  9 13 


3086  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  5.  In  addition  to  the  foregoing  Government  con- 
nections, I  once  lectured,  on  invitation  and  without  pay,  to  a  group 
of  State  Department  personnel,  on  Japan.  I  was  one  of  a  number  of 
outside  persons  who  gave  similar  lectures. 

Mr.  SoiJRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  1  think  the  committee  needs  a  little 
more  information  on  that  subject. 

Did  you  lecture  on  more  than  one  occasion,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lat'I'imore.  Only  that  one  occasion. 

Mr.  Sour  WINE.  Just  one  occasion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  only  occasion  I  can  recall. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  remember  when  that  was  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  look  and  see  if  I  have  the  documentation  on 
that? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  While  we  are  waiting  for  that  answer,  is  it  your 
statement  that  you  did  not  give  a  series  of  talks  or  lectures  for  per- 
sonnel of  the  State  Department? 

IMr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  never  did  any- 
thing of  that  kind;  no. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  This  particular  lecture  that  you  speak  of,  the  date 
of  which  you  are  trying  to  get  us,  can  you  tell  us  how  that  was  ar- 
ranged ? 

jSlr.  Lattimore.  I  will  bring  in  the  exact  date  reference  tomorrow, 
Mr.  Sourwine.  It  was  arranged  by  a  letter  to  me  from  someone  in  the 
State  Department.  I  remember  being  asked  about  that  at  the  time  of 
the  Tydings  committee  hearings,  and  didn't  remember,  and  I  believe 
I  looked  it  up  later  and  found  that  it  was  Mr. — I  think  his  name  is 
Francis  J.  Russell. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  John  Carter  Vincent 
had  anything  to  do  with  that  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  what  position  he  held  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  recall — no. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Did  you  ever  discuss  with  him  the  subject  of  your 
lecture  either  before  or  after  you  made  it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  did. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  If  that  date  could  be  furnished  for  the  record,  I  have 
no  more  questions,  Mr.  Chairman,  on  that  point. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Oo  ahead  with  your  reading,  Mr. 
Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Just  to  keep  the  record  full  at  this  moment,  I  believe 
the  date  was  probably  early  in  1946. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Tliank  you. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  6.  In  1945,  on  my  own  initiative,  I  wrote  to  Presi- 
dent Truman,  expressing  my  views  on  China  policy. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  if  he  kept  a  copy  of 
that  letter. 

Mr.  Laitimore.  Yes,  I  ke])t  a  copy  of  that  letter. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  have  it  with  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  do. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  furnish  it  for  the  committee  record  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Surely. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  ask  that  that  letter,  as  furnished  and  identified  by 
Mr.  Lattimore,  be  placed  in  the  record  at  this  point. 


'  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3087 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  look  at  it  first. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  This  is  a  copy,  Mr.  Lattimore,  of  the  letter  that  you 
speak  of  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  copy. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  it  a  carbon  copy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  it  is  a  typed  copy. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  have  the  carbon  copy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  have  a  carbon  copy.  ' 

Senator  Smith.  An  original  carbon  copy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  original  carbon  copy ;  yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  There  is  only  one  copy  of  this.  For  the  informa- 
tion of  this  committee,  it  is  only  a  single  page,  does  the  Chair  believe 
it  should  be  read  ? 

The  Chairman.  One  moment,  please ;  we  have  not  looked  at  it. 

Senator  Smith,  will  you  take  over  the  chair,  please?  I  have  another 
assignment. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  move,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  letter  to  the 
President  be  made  a  part  of  the  record,  and  if  there  is  any  question 
about  it  it  may  be  compared  with  the  carbon  copy. 

Senator  Smith  (presiding).  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done, 

(Letter  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  473"  and  is  as  follows :) 

Exhibit  No.  473 

June  10,  1945. 
Hon.  Hat.ry  S.  Truman, 

President  of  the  United  States. 

Dear  Mr.  President:  When  Generalissimo  Chiang  Kai-shek,  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  President  Roosevelt,  appointed  me  his  political  adviser  in  1941,  the 
policy  of  the  United  States  was  to  support  a  united  China.  There  appears  now 
to  be  a  major  change  in  our  policy,  which  may  invite  the  danger  of  a  political 
and  even  a  territorial  division  of  China  and  the  further  danger  of  conllict  and 
rivalry  between  America  and  Russia. 

Until  quite  recently,  great  care  was  taken  to  avoid  any  inference  that  America, 
in  aiding  China  as  a  nation,  was  committing  itself  to  all-out  support  of  one  party 
in  China's  domestic  affairs.  There  now  appears  to  be  a  fundamental  change. 
Public  statements  by  men  regarded  as  spokesmen  for  American  policy  encourage 
many  Chinese  to  believe  that  America  now  identities  the  Chinese  Government 
with  one  party  and  only  one  party,  commits  itself  to  the  maintenance  of  that 
party,  and  may  in  the  future  support  that  party  in  suppressing  its  rivals. 

Such  a  belief  among  Chinese  may  make  Russians  feel  that  America  has  led 
the  way  in  committing  itself  to  one  party  in  China,  and  that  Russia  would  be 
justified  in  following  that  lead  and  committing  itself  to  the  other  major  party. 
As  a  consequence,  we  may  be  heading  straight  into  a  situation  in  which  political 
partisanship  and  rivalry  for  control  of  strategic  geographical  zones  will  be  the 
actual  starting  point  for  any  discussion  of  far-eastern  issues  between  America 
and  Russia. 

In  the  eyes  of  many  people  such  a  development  would  mean  that  America  it- 
self, long  the  supporter  of  China's  political  and  territorial  integrity,  had  initiated 
a  new  policy  identified  with  the  political  and  territorial  partition  of  China. 

These  considerations  point  to  the  possibility  of  grave  crisis  and  make  me  feel 
it  my  duty  as  a  citizen  to  lay  before  you,  Mr.  President,  the  opinion  that  the 
crisis  cannot  be  averted  by  approaching  the  problem  through  the  politics  of 
either  China  or  Russia.  The  first  step  toward  a  solution  must  be  to  correct  the 
alarmingly  rapid  drift  of  current  American  policy. 

With  the  utmost  earnestness,  I  venture  to  urge  you  to  have  America's  policy 
toward  China  impartially  reviewed  by  advisers  who  are  not  associated  with 
either  the  formulation  or  the  implementation  of  that  policy  as  recently  prac- 
ticed. 

Resi)ectfully  yours, 

[s]     Owen  Lattimore. 

OL. 


3088  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Smith.  Are  we  ready  to  proceed?  Do  you  have  some 
further  questions  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Not  immediately,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Lattimore  one  question. 

On  the  strength  of  that  letter  which  you  wrote  to  the  President, 
you  had  a  conference  with  the  President? 

Mr.  LATTiMOitE.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Smith.  And  he  gave  you  3  minutes  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Just  about. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right ;  go  ahead. 

Mr.  Latpimore.  I  didn't  have  a  stop  watch  with  me. 

Senator  Smith.  But  you  said  in  your  document  here  it  was  3  min- 
utes, did  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  that  is  my  recollection.  But  it  was  a  relative 
order  of  magnitude  that  I  made. 

The  President,  in  response,  asked  me  to  come  to  see  him,  and  I  did. 
Our  conference  lasted  about  3  minutes.  Neither  my  letter  nor  my 
visit  had  the  slightest  effect  on  American  policy.  This  is  the  only  time, 
in  more  than  25  years,  that  I  ever  took  the  initiative  in  writing  to  a 
President  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Wlien  he  replied,  did  he  only  ask  you  to  come 
and  see  him  ?     He  did  not  give  you  any  opinion,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  a  copy  of  his  reply  here,  which  I  will  be  glad 
to  submit,  if  you  want  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  like  to  see  it. 

JNIr.  Lattimore.  I  think  the  reply  says :  "Glad  to  see  you  some  time." 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  want  to  know  whether  it  was  an  answer  to  your 
letter  or  what.  You  say  now  there  has  been  nothing  done  by  our 
Government  after  the  date  of  the  letter  of  June  1945,  indicating  that 
the  President  followed  anything  you  had  to  say  in  that  letter  ? 

]Mr.  Lattisiore.  Indicating  that  my  visit  had  the  slightest  effect  on 
American  policy. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  say  there  is  nothing? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  in  my  opinion. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  will  have  some  questions  later  on  it. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Is  that  the  only  occasion  when  you  visited  a  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  only  occasion  on  which  I  have  ever 
visited  Mr.  Truman. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  asked  if  that  was  the  only  occasion  on  which  you 
visited  a  President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry,  I  thought  you  said  the  President.  A 
President ;  no.  I  also  saw  President  Roosevelt  several  times,  in  con- 
nection with  my  work  with  Chiang  Kai-shek. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  will  reserve  questions  for  a  later  time,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  leave  with  the  President  any  of  your 
writings? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  book,  you  mean  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  didn't. 

Senator  Ferguson.   Or  any  writing,  outside  of  the  letter? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  left  with  him  two  memoranda. 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3089 

Senator  Ferguson.  Have  you  copies  of  the  memoranda  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  copies  of  those  memoranda.  Incidentally, 
there  is  some  supplementary  correspondence  about  arranging  a  con- 
ference.    Would  you  like  to  see  that,  too  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  I  would  like  to  see  it  all. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  when  you  gave  us  the  first  letter,  why  did  you  not 
give  us  the  memoranda  that  you  left  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  asked  for  the  letter.  I  have  the  whole  lot 
here,  ready  to  hand  over.  I  don't  think  it  is  an  indication  of  reluc- 
tance. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  May  we  take  a  recess  while  these  letters  are  read? 
We  have  been  going  for  about  an  hour  and  20  minutes. 

Senator  Smith.   Wait  until  he  asks  about  these  memoranda. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  move,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  make  all  of 
these  records  a  part  of  the  record. 

Senator  Smith.  Does  that  include  the  memoranda  you  were  talking 
about? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes.    Is  the  document  attached  here  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  it  is  attached. 

Senator  Ferguson.  All  right. 

Senator  Smith.  That  will  be  done  subject  to  the  decision  of  the 
chairman,  if  there  is  any  reason  why  the  communication  the  President 
makes  to  a  third  party  should  not  go  into  the  record.  I  am  not  too 
familiar  with  that  rule  or  policy. 

(For  the  correspondence  referred  to  see  exhibit  No.  530A,  B,  C,  D, 
E,  pp.  3386  to  3388.) 

Senator  Smith.  We  will  recess  for  5  minutes. 

(At  this  point  a  short  recess  was  taken,  after  which  the  hearing 
was  resumed.) 

Senator  Smith.  We  will  proceed  with  the  hearing.  Are  there 
any  further  questions  before  we  proceed  with  reading  the  statement  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  been  asked  by  our  custodian 
of  records  to  be  sure  that  the  witness  and  counsel  understand  that  the 
transcripts  of  the  Vincent  testimony  which  we  handed  over  to  them 
are  the  committee  file  copies,  and  should  not  be  taken  with  them. 

Senator  Smith.  Yes. 

All  right,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  this  point  I  have  found  the 
relevant  passages  in  the  transcript  about  the  quotation  from  Solution 
in  Asia  that  was  shown  to  Mr.  Vincent — No,  it  was  apparently  not 
shown  to  him,  but  read  to  him.     May  I  indicate  it  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  What  page  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  3246. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Of  the  transcript? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Of  the  transcript. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  And  from  page  of  Solution  in  Asia  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  refers  to  as  quoted  on  page  139. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  have  a  copy  of  that  Solution  in  Asia? 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  There  is  one  here. 
■  What  is  the  quotation  which  you  say  was  read  out  of  context  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

The  fact  that  the  Soviet  Union  always  stands  for  democracy  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked. It  stands  for  democracy  because  it  stands  for  all  the  other  things.  Here 
In  America  we  are  in  the  habit  of  taking  a  narrow  view  of  foreign  claimants  to 


3090  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

the  status  of  democracy.  If  China  or  Russia  or  some  other  alien  people  do  not 
measure  up  to  the  standards  of  some  particular  American  modification  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  democracy,  we  say  that  it  is  not  democratic.  We  are  going  to  find  our- 
selves boxing  with  shadows  instead  of  maneuvering  in  politics,  if  we  stick  to 
this  habit.  The  fact  is  that  for  most  of  the  people  in  the  world  today,  what 
constitutes  democi-acy  in  theory  is  more  or  less  irrelevant.  What  moves  people 
to  act,  to  try  to  line  up  with  one  party  or  country  and  not  with  another,  is  the 
difference  between  what  is  more  democratic  and  less  democratic  in  practice. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  What  context  was  that  taken  out  of? 

Mr.  Lattihiore.  That  was  taken  out  of  the  context,  the  previous 
paragraph,  which  begins  "To  all  of  these  peoples — "  that  is,  peoples  of 
the  frontier  of  Russia — 

the  Russians  and  the  Soviet  Union  have  a  great  power  of  attraction.  In  their 
eyes,  rather  doubtfully  in  the  eyes  of  the  older  generation,  the  Soviet  Union 
stands  for  strategic  security,  economic  prosperity,  technological  progress,  mirac- 
ulous medicine,  free  education,  equality  of  opportunity,  and  democracy,  a  pow- 
erful combination — 

then  that  goes  on — 

The  fact  that  the  Soviet  Union  also  stands  for  democracy — 

which  is  clearly  linked  to  the  previous  statement — 

In  their  eyes — 

is  not  to  be  overlooked. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  does  it  not  indicate  clearly  that  there  was 
something  about  it;  it  was  not  taken  out  of  context  to  mislead,  was  it? 

Let  me  see  3^our  book. 

In  the  transcript,  do  the  words  "also  stands"  indicate  that  there  was 
something  else  in  your  book  before  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  it  indicates  the  previous  paragraph,  you  see, 
the  two. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes ;  but  there  was  not  any  attempt  to  leave  the 
impression  there  were  not  any  paragraphs  before  this? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  The  whole  statement  is  introduced,  the  whole 
passage  is  introduced,  by  the  statement  that  "in  their  eyes''  it  looks 
like  this,  not  in  my  eyes,  but  in  their  eyes. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore;  that  paragraph  you  have  just  read 
has  several  sentences.    The  second  sentence  says : 

Here  in  America  we  are  in  the  habit  of  taking  a  narrow  view  of  foreign 
claimants  to  the  status  of  democracy. 

Did  you  mean  that  as  you  wrote  it,  to  cover  only  what  we  here  in 
America  are  in  the  habit  of  from  the  standpoint  of  the  eyes  of  the 
peoples  of  Russia  and  the  Soviet  Union,  or  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
peojiles  of  Asia  that  you  were  referring  to  in  the  paragraph  above? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  little  bit  complicated,  your  question,  Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  We  will  reduce  it  to  a  simpler  form. 

Is  all  of  this  paragraph  which  you  read,  which  you  say  was  taken 
out  of  context,  is  air  of  that  paragraph  to  be  read  as  an  expression  of 
what  these  "peoples"  referred  to  in  the  paragraph  above? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  All  of  it  is  to  be  taken  in  context  with  the  intro- 
ductory statement  that,  politically,  the  Soviet  Union,  as  of  1945  had 
a  great  power  of  attraction  to  people  on  its  frontiers. 

I  then  describe  the  reasons  for  that  power  of  attraction,  as  I  thought 
it  appeared  to  the  eyes  of  the  people  affected. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3091 

The  statement  as  presented  in  the  transcript  looks  as  if  I  had  merely 
given  a  eulogistic  description  of  Soviet  Russia,  as  my  own  description, 
without  reference  to  the  opinions  of  the  people  whom  I  had  previously 
mentioned.    I  think  that  is  a  serious  distortion  of  context. 

Mr.  SouRwaNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  there  are  a  number  of  separate  sen- 
tences in  that  paragraph,  are  there  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  SouEWiNE.  How  about  this  sentence: 

We  are  going  to  find  ourselves  boxing  with  shadows  instead  of  maneuvering 
In  politics  if  we  stick  to  this  habit. 

Who  is  the  "we"  that  you  were  referring  to  there  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  "We"  is  primarily  the  United  States,  but  I  think 
it  might  be  stretched  to  include  also  the  democracies  of  Western 
Europe  with  interests  in  Asia. 

Mr.  SouRAviNE.  Then  you  ^ay: 

The  fact  is  that  for  most  of  the  people  in  the  world  today,  what  constitutes 
democracy  in  theory  is  more  or  less  irrelevant. 

Wlien  you  said  "fact"  there,  were  you  referring  only  to  a  fact  in 
the  eyes  of  all  of  these  people  that  you  mentioned  in  the  paragraph 
above? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  was  referring  to  a  fact  in  my  own  opinion. 

Mr.  Sourwt:ne.  But  in  three  sentences  above  that,  where  you  said, 
"The  fact  that  the  Soviet  Union" — you  were  not  referring  to  a  fact 
in  your  own  opinion;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  was  referring  to  a  fact  in  the  eyes  of  the 
people  to  whom  I  referred. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  think  counsel  for  the  committee  understood 
that,  and  deliberately  quoted  this  out  of  context? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  presumed  that  they  had  graduated  from  more 
grammar  schools,  high  schools,  colleges,  and  so  forth,  than  I  had.  If 
I  was  able  to  w^rite  it,  they  ought  to  be  able  to  read  it. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  have  no  more  questions,  IMr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Ferguson.  How  could  the  previous  paragraph  that  you 
claim  was  left  out  after  this  sentence : 

Here  in  America  we  are  in  the  habit  of  taking  a  narrow  view  of  foreign 
claimants  to  the  status  of  democracy. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  the  two  paragraphs  are  very  closely  tied 
together.  Senator  Ferguson. 

Senator  Fergusox.  Well,  who  is  the  "we"  here?     Here  in  America? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  That  was  not  saying  there  that  the  people  of 
Russia 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No — here  in  America,  we  Americans  are  in  the 
habit  of  taking  a  very  narrow  view  of  foreign  claimants  to  the  status 
of  democracy. 

In  other  words,  we  do  not  regard  the  Russians  as  democratic,  but, 
for  the  reasons  given  above,  there  is  the  possibility  that  other  people, 
who  don't  know  the  United  States,  might  take  the  Russians  as  demo- 
cratic. 

That  is  a  political  fact  which  we  have  to  take  in  consideration,  if 
we  want  to  set  up  a  counter  program  that  makes  those  people  more 
attracted  to  us  and  our  policy  than  to  the  Russians  and  their  policy. 


3092  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

In  fact,  somewhere  else  I  state  that  the  United  States  has  more  power 
of  attraction  over  Asia  than  any  other  country,  if  we  will  use  it  rightly. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Vincent  said  about  your 
paragraph,  whom  you  have  quoted  here  as  being  able  to  be  an  Am- 
bassador, and  placed  him  on  a  par  with  some  of  the  other  members  of 
the  State  Department  in  the  higher  brackets? 

He  said:  "I  would  say  that  that  was  a  misconception  of  commu- 
nism." .  Would  you  say  he  was  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  see  that  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes,  and  it  was  not  on  a  leading  question,  either. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Vincent,  after  having  this  truncated  quota- 
tion read  to  him,  is  asked:  "Now  that  you  have  heard  it" — that  is, 
without  the  part  which  I,  the  author,  regard  as  essential — "does  it 
have  any  connotation  in  your  mind  as  being  pro-Communist  or  anti- 
Communist?"  . 

Mr.  Vincent  replied :  "  I  would  say  that  that  was  a  misconception 
of  communism."  Mr.  Vincent  is  replying  in  1952  to  a  passage  written 
in  1945,  published  in  1945.  In  other  words,  at  a  time  when  the  entire 
situation  had  greatly  altered. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  now  say  that  it  is  a  misconception  of 
communism  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  would  not  say  that.  I  would  say  that  at  the 
present  time  this  kind  of  power  of  attraction  of  the  Russians  over 
neighboring  people  in  Asia,  has  probably  diminished  in  a  great  many 
cases.    I  do  not  know  of  any  cases  in  which  it  may  have  increased. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  can  you  see  anything  in  that 
paragraph  that  may  have  led  the  Communist  Party  to  adopt  your 
book  as  a  background  on  the  Communist  line  in  having  told  in  the 
same  ad  with  Foster  and  Kahn's  book.  Taking  your  paragraph,  can 
you  see  any  reason  that  they  may  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Ferguson,  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  proc- 
esses of  the  Communist  mind,  or  why  they  choose  my  book,  or  any- 
body else's  book  as  general  reading. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  have  complained,  as  I  under- 
stand, about  something  being  read  out  of  context.  Now,  the  para- 
graph that  you  referred  to  as  being  read  out  of  context,  is  a  paragraph 
consisting  of  seven  sentences,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right.  At  least  I  will  accept  your  count. 
I  have  not  made  the  count  myself. 

Senator  Smith.  You  start  off  one  of  them  in  saying:  "Here  in 
America,  we  are  in  the  habit  of  taking  a  narrow  view  of  foreign 
claimants  to  the  status  of  democracy." 

There  is  nothing  in  that  sentence  connected  with  any  preceding 
paragraph  or  sentence,  is  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  particular  sentence,  I  think,  is  merely  a  state- 
ment of  fact. 

Senator  Smith.  Well,  yes.  Now  the  next  sentence  is  also  in  the 
same  category,  is  it  not?  It  does  not  refer  back  to  anybody's  eyes, 
or  the  eyes  of  any  particular  people  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  here  the  inference  is  very  clear  that  I  am  re- 
ferring to  the  fact  that  Americans,  rightly,  in  my  opinion,  do  not 
reroiJfnize  Russia  as  a  democracy. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3093 

Then  I  go  on  to  say — 

but  we  are  boxing  shadows  if  we  don't  realize  that  what  the  Russians  have  to 
offer  in  the  most  illiterate  and  backward  parts  of  Asia  may  appear  to  people 
there  to  be  democratic.  If  we  are  going  to  meet  that  attraction,  we  have  to 
set  up  something  that  will  beat  the  Russians'  attraction. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  not  what  you  said  in  the  book,  is  it?  You 
are  adding  that  now. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  part  of  the  entire  thread  running  through 
the  book,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  Then  the  complaint  that  you  have  to  make  against 
the  committee  is  for  not  putting  the  whole  book  in,  printing  the  whole 
book? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  complaint  I  have  is  that  this  particular  para- 
graph is  so  clearly  related  to  my  statement  of  "other  peoples'  opin- 
ions" that  it  is  a  quotation  out  of  context  to  put  it  in  in  a  manner 
that  would  lead  the  hearer,  when  he  merely  has  it  read  to  him,  to 
believe  that  it  was  a  statement  of  my  opinion. 

Senator  Smith.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  would  be  a  statement  of 
your  opinion.  But  that  is  a  matter  for  construction.  I  suppose 
we  need  not  waste  our  time  on  that. 

All  right,  you  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Very  little  has  been  said  about  me  before  this  sub- 
committee that  wasn't  already  in  the  record  of  the  hearings  before 
the  Ty dings  subcommittee.  Most  of  it  is  just  a  regurgitation  of  the 
same  vague  nonsense.  To  refresh  your  memories,  let  me  read  to  you 
the  conclusions  of  the  majority  of  that  subcommittee. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  would  you  indicate,  please,  where, 
in  the  hearings  before  this  subcommittee,  has  been  regurgitated  1,400 
pages,  or  any  portion  of  it,  of  the  Tydings'  hearings  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  say  the  Budenz  testimony,  and  a  lot  of 
the  rest. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Are  you  saying  that  Mr.  Budenz  testified  before 
this  committee  the  same  way  that  he  testified  before  the  Tydings' 
committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  saying  that  he  regurgitated  the  same  non- 
sense, with  some  additional  embellishments. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Since  we  would  prefer  to  use  more  precise  and 
descriptive  words  than  your  adjectives,  will  you  answer  my  question, 
please  ? 

Is  it  your  statement  that  Mr.  Budenz  testified  before  this  committee 
substantially  the  same  as  he  testified  before  the  Tydings'  committee? 

Senator  Smith.  Can  you  not  answer  that  question,  whether  he  did 
or  whether  he  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  did  and  he  did  not.  Senator.  He  repeated  his 
Tydings'  testimony,  or  most  of  it,  and  he  added  some  more.  I  come 
to  that  later  in  my  statement. 

Mr.  Sour"\vine.  Is  it  your  statement,  sir,  that  Mr.  Budenz  in  the 
testimony  before  this  committee,  contradicted  anything  that  he  had 
said  before  the  Tydings'  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Contradicted? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes,  sir.  Did  he,  before  this  committee  contradict 
himself  in  what  he  had  said  before  the  Tydings'  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  recall  offhand  that  he  did. 


3094  LNSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  he  before  the  Tydings  committee  say  anything 
which  contradicted  anything  he  hiter  said  before  this  committee? 

INIr.  Lattimore.  Before  the  Tydings'  committee  he  was  cross-exam- 
ined and  he  contradicted  things  he  had  previously  said. 

Mr.  SouRWixE.  I  wish  you  would  answer  the  question,  sir. 

Mr.  Laitimore.  Before  the  Tydings'  committee  he  could  hardly 
contradict  something  he  hadn't  said  yet  before  this  committee.  When 
he  came  to  this  committee,  he  obviously  had  to  watch  his  step  in  deal- 
ing with  his  previous  Tydings'  testimony. 

Senator  Smith.  I  thought  your  complaint  the  other  day,  Mr.  Latti- 
more, was  that  he  said  more  than  he  said  before  the  Tydings'  com- 
mittee, and  things  differently. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  deal  with  that  later  in  my  statement. 

Senator  Smith.  You  did  make  that  statement,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  did. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right,  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  sure  that  it  comes  later  in  my  statement ;  I 
think  it  comes  previously,  where  I  deal  with  his  testimony  about 
Japan.    I  am  not  sure  whether  it  is  earlier  or  previously. 

This  is  quoting  from  tlie  Tj^dings'  committee  report,  pages  72  and 
73: 

Owen  Lattimore  is  a  writer  and  a  scholar  who  has  been  charged  with  a  record 
of  procommunism  going  back  many  years.  There  is  no  legal  evidence  before  us 
whatever  to  support  this  charge,  and  the  weight  of  all  other  information  indicates 
that  it  is  not  true  *  *  *  "We  find  absolutely  no  evidence  to  indicate  that  his 
writings  and  other  expressions  have  been  anything  but  the  honest  opinions  and 
convictions  of  Owen  Lattimore.  Similar  opinions  and  convictions  vis-a-vis  the 
Far  East  are  entertained  by  many  Americans,  about  whom  no  conceivable  sug- 
gestion of  Communist  proclivities  could  be  entertained.  We  do  not  find  that  Mr. 
Lattimore's  writings  follow  the  Communist  or  any  other  line,  save  as  his  very 
consistent  position  on  the  Far  East  may  be  called  the  Lattimore  line. 

In  the  hearings  before  this  subcommittee  there  has,  however, 
been  some  addition  to,  and  some  subtraction  from,  the  cast  of  char- 
acter. The  most  important  subtraction  is  Freda  Utley,  who  has  not — 
at  least  not  yet — ^been  accorded  the  publicity  facilities  of  these  hear- 
ings. Miss  Utley  is  an  ex-Communist,  with  a  record  of  pro-Nazi 
utterances. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Will  you  give  us  the  data  on  the  pro-Nazi 
utterances  ? 

]\rr.  LATrmoRE.  I  have  that  data  in  the  transcript  of  the  Tydings' 
committee  hearings.   Just  let  me  see  if  I  have  it  here. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  are  you  quoting  from  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  quoting  from  a  review  in  Catholic  World  by 
Leonard  J.  Schweitzer,  of  Freda  Utley's  the  High  Cost  of  Vengeance. 

Senator  Smith.  We  will  not  accept  any  review,  also,  that  you  have 
a  quotation  from. 

Senator  Ferguson.  We  want  to  know  what  you  are  quoting  from. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  have  already  testified  under  oath  that  Miss 
Utley  is  an  ex-Communist  with  a  record  of  pro-Nazi  utterances. 

We  want  to  know  what  the  utterances  are. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Let  me  see  if  I  have  any  direct  quotes  here. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Surely  you  did  not  take  that  from  an  editorial 
of  some  opinion  of  hers  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Here  is  a  direct  quote. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  By  whom  ? 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3095 

Mr.  Lattimore.  A  direct  quote  of  Freda  Utley,  from  her  book,  The 
High  Cost  of  Vengeance. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  have  the  book  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  have  the  book  with  me. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  know  whether  that  quotation  is  taken  out 
of  context  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  it  is. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  that  what  you  are  basing  your  charge  on,  that  she 
has  a  record  of  pro-Nazi  utterances  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  basing  it  on  this  and  a  number  of  other 
quotations. 

Senator  Smith.  Have  you  ever  read  the  book  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes;  I  have. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  have  the  book  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Have  we  a  copy  with  us  ? 

I  have  a  copy  at  home  in  Bahimore.     I  don't  have  it  with  me. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  suggest  we  wait  until  we  get  the  book. 

Senator  Smith.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Before  the  Tydings'  committee  she  demonstrated 
her  personal  animus  against  me.  This  committee  hired  her  as  a 
member  of  its  staff,  and  she  undoubtedly  aided  in  recruiting  witnesses 
and  in  rehearsing  their  stories. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  If  the  Chairman  would  pardon  me,  I  would  like 
to  ask  Mr.  Lattimore  to  name  one  witness  who  was  recruited  by  Miss 
Utley. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  cannot  name  any  witness.  I  have  not  been  inside 
the  proceedings  of  this  committee.  That  is  why  I  wrote  "undoubt- 
edly." 

Mr.  Sourwine.  "What  do  you  mean  by  "undoubtedly"?  "Un- 
doubtedly" means  "without  doubt." 

Mr.  Latfimore.  Without  doubt,  in  my  mind. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  do  not  say  that. 

Senator  Smith.  You  are  making  a  statement  of  fact. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  clear,  from  the  context,  I  think. 

Senator  Smith.  You  still  understand,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  you  are 
under  oath,  and  you  are  making  a  statement  of  fact  here,  and  now  you 
have  no  information  to  back  it  up  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Excuse  me,  Senator  Smith,  I  think  I  am  making  an 
expression  of  strong  opinion. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  not  what  we  want  here.  We  want  facts, 
as  we  have  mentioned  manj^  times. 

Do  you  know  whether  or  not  this  committee  had  had  any  witness 
recruited  by  Miss  Utley  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  mj^  opinion 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  not  asking  your  opinion.  I  am  asking  for 
a  fact. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  know.  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  I  did  not  think  you  did. 

Mr.  Souravine.  Do  you  know  whether  Miss  Utley  rehearsed  the 
etory  of  any  witness  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  assume  from  the  way  in  which  some  of  those 
etories  were  presented 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know,  sir  ? 


3096  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  for  a  fact. 

Senator  Smith.  Then  you  are  makinjr  statements  here  under  oath, 
that  are  not  the  truth,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  making  statements  of  strong  opinions. 

Senator  Smith.  We  do  not  want  any  more  opinions.  We  want 
statements  of  fact.  You  are  sworn.  If  you  do  not  know  a  thing  to 
be  a  fact,  we  do  not  want  you  to  be  sitting  here  quoting  somebody 
else's  opinion.     You  are  just  wasting  the  time  of  everybody. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  a  great  many  statements  of  opinion  against 
me  have  been  freely  entered  into  the  record.  Am  I  not  to  be  allowed 
to  state  my  own  opinions  ? 

Senator  Smith.  No;  you  state  facts.  That  is  what  we  want.  If 
you  do  not  have  a  foundation  of  fact,  then  do  not  state  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  know  why  she  has  so  discreetly  disappeared, 
or  whether  her  removal  is  permanent.  My  guess  is  that  the  commit- 
tee, or  its  staff,  must  have  concluded  after  this  intimate  dealing  with 
her  that  she  was  too  obviously  erratic  and  unreliable,  and  too  clearly 
an  agent  of  the  China  lobby. 

Senator  Smith.  You  are  "guessing"  now,  are  you  not  ?  You  admit 
you  are  guessing  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  stating  it. 

Senator  Smith.  And  you  have  not  a  particle  of  information  in  the 
■way  of  facts,  to  back  that  up  ? 

Mr.  Lai^pimore.  I  am  making  my  guess.    I  stated  it  as  a  guess. 

I  hope  that  some  day  the  story  will  be  told,  which  will  give  the 
details  of  this  extraordinary  show  of  circumspection.  It  reminds  me 
of  the  farcical  incident  of  the  missing  witness,  Huber,  recruited  by 
Joe  McCarthy,  to  appear  before  the  Tydings  committee. 

He  was  subpenaed  at  the  request  of  the  Wisconsin  Senator — "the 
Wisconsin  whimperer,"  who  has  recently  shown  Mr.  Luce  that  he  can 
dish  it  out,  but  he  can't  take  it — but  Huber  lost  his  nerve  at  the  last 
moment.  I've  often  wondered  what  happened  to  Huber  and  why  he 
has  not  been  compelled  to  explain  how  he  was  recruited  and  by  whom, 
and  what  eventually  happened. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  if  he 
thinks  Mr.  Hubei  has,  or  has  had,  anything  to  do  with  this  committee 
or  its  proceedings  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  so,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then  why  do  you  drag  him  into  your  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  stating  the  case  of  the  witness  who  disap- 
peared, after  McCarthy  recruited  him,  and  I  am  comparing  it  with  the 
fact  that  Miss  Utley  has  not  appeared  after  the  committee  recruited 
her. 

Senator  Smith.  You  think  that  has  some  place  in  this  hearing,  that 
paragraph  you  just  read,  do  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir ;  1  have  had — r- 

Senator  Smith.  As  a  statement  of  fact? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  a  statement  of  opinion. 

Senator  Smith.  I  say  "as  a  statement  of  fact"  do  you  contend  that 
is  a  fact? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  "WHiat  is  a  fact? 

Senator  Smith.  What  you  have  stated  in  that  paragraph.  You 
know  what  I  am  talking  about,  Mr.  Lattimore. 


INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3097 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Excuse  me,  sir.  The  discussion  has  gone  on  over 
several  subjects,  and  I  am  not  quite  sure  what  fact  you  are  referring  to. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  you  about  that  paragraph  you  just 
read.  Did  you  introduce  that  as  a  statement  of  fact  ?  Do  you  under- 
stand that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  statement  of  fact  that  Huber  was  recruited  by 
McCarthy,  that  he  later  lost  his  nerve  and  disappeared,  and  so  on? 
Yes,  I  state  that  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  talking  about  what  is  in  the  paragraph,  that 
whole  paragraph,  is  that  a  statement  of  fact  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  belief,  it  is,  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right ;  go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Among  the  additions  to  the  Tydings  list  I  have 
already  dealt  in  some  detail  with  Mr.  Dooman  and  Mr.  Stassen,  and 
have  referred  to  the  novel  ideas  of  Mr.  Colegrove  and  Mr.  McGovern^ 
concerning  my  alleged  recommendations  about  Japan. 

I  should  now  like  to  turn  to  the  testimony  of  Barmine  and  FittfogeL 

General  BaiTnine,  of  course,  is  an  ex-Communist.  So  is  Wittfogel. 
Your  chairman,  Senator  McCarran,  has  indicated  that  this  makes 
them  especially  credible  witnesses. 

Senator  Smith.  On  what  do  you  base  that,  your  charge  against 
Chairman  McCarran  ?     Is  that  some  more  opinion  of  yours  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  That  is  not  a  charge  against  Senator  McCarran^ 
Senator  Smith. 

Senator  Smith.  Is  that  backed  up  with  facts,  or  is  that  mere  opinion 
of  yours  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  a  reference  to  Senator  McCarran's  introduc- 
tory remarks,  at  the  beginning  of  the  hearings  of  this  subcommittee. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  It  is  your  interpretation  of  those  remarks,  is  it  not, 
sir? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  read  the  remarks  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Is  it  your  interpretation  of  those  remarks  or  a  di- 
rect quote  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  not  printed  here  as  a  direct  quote.  I  would 
have  to  look  through  it  to  see  whether  the  words  "specially  credible 
witnesses"  do  appear  there  directly. 

Senator  Smith,  Or  whether  Senator  McCarran  indicated.  You 
say  there  "Your  chairman,  Senator  McCarran,  has  indicated  that  this 
makes  them" — that  is,  the  fact  that  they  are  ex-Communists — "espe- 
cially credible  witnesses." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  chairman  stated : 

In  such  an  investigation  as  this,  where  a  possible  conspiracy  is  being  exam- 
ined, very  often  the  only  evidence  obtainable  derives  from  persons  who  once 
participated  in  the  conspiracy. 

I  think  my  words  here  are  a  warrantable  characterization  of  that, 
Mr.  SouRwiNE.  And  the  Senator  went  on : 

Only  eyes  that  witnessed  the  deeds,  and  ears  that  heard  the  words  of  intrigue, 
can  attest  thereto.  Thus,  ex-Communists,  and  agents  of  the  Government  who 
posed  as  Communists,  often  are  the  only  sources  of  evidence  of  what  transpired 
behind  doors,  closed  to  the  non-Communist  world. 

Do  you  think  there  is  anything  in  that  that  has  anything  to  do  with 
the  credibility  of  an  ex-Communist  as  a  witness  ? 


3098  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  it  is  a  fair  inference  of  mine  to  state 
that  Senator  McCarran  has  indicated  that  these  make  them  especially 
credible  witnesses. 

ISIr.  SouRwiNE.  Do  you  not  see  any  difference  between  availability 
and  credibility? 

Your  shrug  does  not  get  into  the  record. 

Mr,  Lattimore.  This  is  more  lawyer  language,  Mr.  Sourwine.  I 
wrote  what  I  thought. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  think  "availability"  and  "credibility"  are 
legal  terms,  which  require  a  legal  definition?  You  used  that  word 
"credibility" — it  is  your  word,  as  you  said  the  other  day.  What  do 
you  mean  by  it  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  was  referring  to  credibility  and  not  availability, 
and  I  think  that  my  opinion  there  is  supported  by  what  has  just  been 
read  from  Senator  McCarran 's  introductory  statement. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  did  you  mean  by  the  word  "credibility"? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  meant  that  the  committee  would  believe  them. 

Mr,  Sourwine.  And  you  think  that  Senator  McCarran  is  saying 
here  that  ex-Communists  are  especially  entitled  to  be  believed? 

Mr,  Lattimore,  That  was  the  impression  that  I  got. 

Mr,  Sourwine,  Do  you  still  get  that  impression,  now  that  we  have 
been  over  the  language  again  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  still  do. 

Senator  Smith.  So  you  still  say  that  Senator  McCarran  has  indi- 
cated that? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  In  my  opinion,  he  has  indicated. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  you  for  a  statement  of  fact,  Mr.  Latti- 
more. You  seem  to  dodge  behind  your  opinions.  You  seem  to  forget 
that  you  are  under  oath  to  testify  to  the  truth  here. 

Now,  do  you  still  say  that  Senator  McCarran  has  indicated  that 
this  makes  them  specially  credible  witnesses  ? 

Mr,  Lattimore,  What  I  am  clearly  stating  there  is  my  opinion,  that 
Senator  McCarran  has  so  stated. 

Senator  Smith,  All  right, 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  should  have  assumed  the  contrary:  that  a  man 
who  has  spent  his  life  in  the  Communist  school  of  lies,  deceit,  and 
intrigue,  should  always  be  suspect.  But  Senator  McCarran  would 
apparently  regard  that  view  as  proof  of  Communist  tendencies. 

Barmine  was  a  Eed  army  general. 

Senator  Smith.  He  admitted,  did  he  not,  that  he  was  Red  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  he  did.  That  is  my  authority  for  making  this 
statement. 

His  testimony  was  that  another  Red  general  told  him  that  I  was  a 
Soviet  agent  in  China.  This  was  not  entirely  new,  since  Senator  Mc- 
Carthy liad  quoted  Barmine  in  his  attack  on  me  in  March  1950,  and 
then  dropped  him. 

After  reading  the  transcript  of  Barmine's  flimsy  testimony  before 
your  committee,  I  wonder  if  this  use  of  fantasy  and  hallucination  to 
establish  guilt  is  not  more  worthy  of  the  Kremlin  than  of  the  United 
States  Senate, 

Mr,  Sourwine,  Mr.  Lattimore,  have  you  at  any  point  in  the  prepa- 
ration of  til  is  statement  deliberately  sought  to  be  contemptuous  of 
this  committee,  and/or  the  Senate  of  "the  United  States  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3099 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir;  I  have  deliberately  sought  to  express  a 
feeling  of  indignation  and  outrage  against  the  treatment  I  have 
received. 

Senator  Smith.  Wliat  treatment  do  you  refer  to  from  this  com- 
mittee, so  far  as  this  committee  is  concerned,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  refer  to  the  admission  of  the  kind  of  evidence  that 
has  been  heaped  against  me  without  a  word  of  cross-examination,  to 
test  the  reliability  or  credibility  of  the  witnesses. 

Senator  Smith.  Is  that  all  you  have  to  say  on  that  ?    All  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Barmine  was  a  conspicuously  reluctant  witness  be- 
fore 3'ou,  and  in  spite  of  leading  questions  by  Mr.  Morris  and  members 
of  this  committee,  and  their  repeated  efforts  to  aid  him  in  remember- 
ing conversations  and  events  between  him  and  other  Reds,  supposed 
to  have  taken  place  15  or  18  years  ago,  his  answers  remained  vague, 
apologetic,  and  full  of  qualifications. 

Barmine  said  that  the  other  Red  general,  named  Berzin,  in  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  possibility  of  opening  Soviet  intelligence  branches  along 
tlie  China  coast,  mentioned  me  and  Joseph  Barnes  as  "our  men," 
whatever  that  means,  in  connection  with  the  possible  use  of  IPR  per- 
sonnel in  China. 

Here  Barmine  made  two  slips.  He  referred  to  this  discussion  as 
taking  place  at  the  end  of  1933 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might  interrupt  there,  because 
of  that  date,  would  the  witness  indicate  at  what  point  in  the  transcript 
of  the  testimony  Mr.  Barmine  said  that  this  discussion  took  place  at 
the  end  of  1933?  It  is  the  understanding  of  the  committee  staff  that 
Mr.  Barmine  said  it  took  place  in  1935. 

Senator  Smith.  Will  you  point  that  out? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  That  is  taken  up  in  the  rest  of  the  paragraph. 

Senator  Smith.  Can  you  point  that  out? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  referring  to  the  fact  that  a  correction  was 
made  later  and  therefore  doubtless  it  doesn't  appear  in  the  final 
transcript  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  SouRw^iNE.  You  mean  a  correction  in  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Barmine,  sir? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Are  you  intending  to  state  or  imply  that  this  com- 
mittee has  doctored  the  transcript  of  Mr.  Barmine's  testimony  in 
publication  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  whether  the  committee  or  its  staff 
doctored  the  testimony,  or  whether  Barmine  made  a  request  to  alter 
his  testimony,  or  what  happened, 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Are  you  making  the  charge  that  it  was  altered? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  making  the  charge  that,  if  I  may  go  on  with 
the  rest  of  the  paragraph — I  think  it  explains  it  clearly, 

Mr.  Sourwine,  I  think  you  should  answer  that  right  now,  sir.  Are 
you  making  the  charge  that  the  testimony  was  altered  after  having 
been  given,  that  the  transcript  was  changed  for  whatever  reason  after 
the  testimony  had  been  taken  clown  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  making  the  charge  that  newspapermen  who 
called  me  after  the  story — that  newspapermen  called  me  after  the  story 
appeared  and  Barmine's  story  was  mysteriously  up-dated  in  later 
editions  of  the  evening  papers. 


3100  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Smith.  What  newspapermen  called  you?  Let  us  get  that 
fact  now. 

JNIr.  Lattimore.  The  man  who  called  me  was,  as  I  remember,  the 
United  Press  man,  United  Press  desk  mail,  in  Baltimore. 

Senator  Smith.  What  was  his  name? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  remember  his  name. 

Senator  Smith.  Who  else  called  you,  a  newspaperman? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  was  the  only  one — no,  there  may  have  been  a 
Baltimore  Sun  man  who  called  me,  too. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  know  who  that  was  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE,  Were  you  here  when  Mr.  Barmine  was  testify- 
ing, sir? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  wasn't. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  make  the  definite  statement  here,  and  a  state- 
ment you  are  offering  this  committee  under  oath,  that  he,  meaning 
Barmine,  referred  to  this  discussion  as  taking  place  at  the  end  of  1933. 
Do  you  know  that  to  be  so  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  am  making  reference  to  the  fact  that  two  different 
newspaper  stories  appeared. 

Senator  Smith.  You  do  not  know  it  of  your  own  knowledge?  Just 
answer  my  question,  do  you  know  it  of  your  knowledge  or  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  I  don't  know  it  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  you  read  the  record  of  Mr.  Barmine's  testi- 
mony at  that  point  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  have. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  what  that  record  shows? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  As  the  record  now  stands,  it  doesn't  show  1933. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Wliat  does  it  show  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not — I  would  have  to  read  it  again  to  re- 
fresh my  memory,  but  my  impression  is  that  it  doesn't  show  very 
clearly  what  yeai . 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  mean,  sir,  that  you  are  stating  here,  on  the 
basis  of  what  one  or  two  newspapermen,  according  to  you,  told  you, 
that  the  testimony  of  this  witness  was  different  from  what  the  record 
which  you  have  read  shows  it  to  have  been? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  what  newspapermen  told  me,  I  am  basing 
it  on  newspaper  clips. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Are  you  testifying  here  on  the  basis  of  newspaper 
clips — if  you  please,  Mr.  Lattimore — are  you  testifying  here  on  the 
basis  of  newspaper  clips  that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Barmine  was 
actually  different  from  what  the  record  before  this  committee  shows 
it  to  have  been? 

;Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  testifying  that  after  the  story  appeared,  I  was 
called  for  comment  because  1933  was  mentioned  and  I  said  "Wliy, 
my  goodness,  in  1933  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Institute  of  Pacific 
Relations."    And  the  later  stories  carried  the  date  1935  or  1936. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  are  you  presuming  to  conclude  from  that  that 
the  record  of  this  committee  was  changed,  rather  than  accepting  the 
possibility  that  a  newspaperman  might  have  been  mistaken? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  say  that,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

IVIr.  Sourwine.  What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  say  that  when  I  pointed  out  to  newspapermen 
who  called  me  after  the  story  appeared 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3101 

Mr.  SouKwiNE.  Pointed  out  what  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  in  1933  I  had  no  connection  with  the  In- 
stitute of  Pacific  Relations,  and  that  I  was  in  the  United  States 
and  not  in  China  from  1933  to  the  autumn  of  1934,  after  this,  after 
I  had  been  called  on  this  point,  Barmine's  story  was  mysteriously 
up-dated  in  later  editions. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Of  the  evening  papers,  is  that  not  what  you  said? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Either  the  evening  papers  or  the  morning  papers, 
I  can't  recollect  now. 

Senator  Smith.  How  about  the  rest  of  the  sentence,  to  refer  to 
1935  or  1936  ?  You  do  not  know  now  whether  it  was  1935  or  1936,  do 
you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  record  reads,  page  194  of  the  printed  record, 
that  Mr.  Barmine  said  that  he  was  appointed  to  the  presidency 
of  some  trust  that  he  was  working  for  at  the  end  of  1933. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  witness^ 
interpretation  of  what  the  record  says  is  of  any  particular  value 
here. 

If  he  has  a  portion  of  that  record  which  he  believes  establishes 
his  contention  that  Mr.  Barmine  said  1933,  I  think  he  should  offer 
that  portion  of  the  record  and  let  it  go  in  now. 

Mr.  Fortas.  Mr.  Chairman,  will  you  give  a  witness  a  minute  to 
look  at  the  record,  since  there  is  a  question  about  the  record? 

Senator  Smith.  I  thought  we  had  it  there. 

Mr.  Fortas.  He  hasn't  had  a  chance  to  look  at  it  since  he  has  been 
asked  the  question. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Lattimore  do  you  have  in  your  possession,  I 
mean  for  your  own  use,  a  copy  of  that  transcript  ? 

]VIr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Smith.  Then  I  am  going  to  suggest  that  if  you  can  find 
any  justification  or  statement  about  the  1933  and  will  send  it  out 
any  time  within  the  next  10  days,  we  will  look  it  over  and  see  it. 
That  is  to  save  time. 

All  right,  Mr.  Sourwine,  have  you  some  other  questions? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes,  I  have  one  more  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  you  stated  and  stressed  the  fact  that  you  had  no 
connection  with  the  IPR  until  1934.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  did  you 
not  attend  the  IPR  conference  in  1933  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  attended  it  as  a  delegate.  I  was  not  an  em- 
ployee, no. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  think  the  attendance  at  that  conference  was 
not  a  connection  with  IPR  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  accept  your  amendment,  sir. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Were  you  ever  an  employee  of  IPR  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  an  employee  of  IPR  from  the  beginning 
of  1934. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Until  when  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Until  1941. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  are  speaking  now  of  your  connection  with 
the  magazine  Pacific  Affairs? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  As  editor  of  that  magazine,  you  were  an  em- 
ployee of  IPR? 

88348— 52— pt.  9 14 


3102  INSTITUTE   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  an  employee  of  the  Pacific  Council  of  the 
IPR,  not  the  American  IPR. 

Senator  Smith.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Barmine  also  said  our  names  had  been  suggested 
because  they  needed  men  who  had  "military  training"  (p.  1933).  I 
have  had  no  military  experience  whatever,  and  I  doubt  if  Barnes 
had,  either.  When  Senator  Eastland  asked  him,  "Just  exactly  what 
did  he  say  about  Mr.  Lattimore?"  Mr.  Barmine  answered  eva- 
sively, "You  see,  I  want  to  emphasize  that  this  project  which  was 
finally  never  realized  by  me  was  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  prepa- 
ration. This  was  15  or  16  years  ago — to  tell  you  exactly  what  words, 
I  would  not  like  to  say  anything  I  don't  remember  very  firmly." 
Again,  how  vague  can  testimony  be  and  still  be  permitted  to  be  used 
to  blacken  a  man's  name? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Will  you  read  that  sentence  again,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  last  one  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Again,  how  vague  can  testimony  be  and  still  be 
permitted  to  be  used  to  blacken  a  man's  name  ? 

Mr.  Sourwin:^.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Since  everything  about  Barmine's  General  Berzin 
sounds  rather  fishy  I  tried  to  look  him  up  on  Barmine's  book  One 
Who  Survived.  Sprinkled  all  through  this  book,  in  both  the  original 
French  version  and  the  American  version,  which  seems  to  have  been 
stepped  up  considerably  for  local  consumption,  are  a  great  many 
names  of  important  Russians  with  whom  Barmine  claimed  to  have 
rubbed  shoulders.  One  name  that  is  entirely  missing  in  both  ver- 
sions is  that  of  General  Berzin.  Yet  in  his  testimony  Barmine  makes 
a  great  deal  of  Berzin  as  a  real  big  shot  under  whom  he  worked  for 
15  years.  Why  does  he  mention  him  here  for  the  first  time?  Inci- 
dentally, neither  version  of  Barmine's  book,  of  course,  mentions  Jo- 
seph Barnes  or  Owen  Lattimore  or  the  IPR. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  ask  one  brief  question? 

Senator  Smith.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  know  if  there  was  a  Gen- 
eral Berzin? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  no  idea. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Barmine  also  stated  that  a  General  Krivitsky  in 
Paris  in  1938  corroborated  Berzin's  statement  about  Barnes  and  me. 
General  Krivitsky  also  wrote  a  book  and  testified  before  the  House 
Un-American  Activities  Committee  in  1938.  In  neither  place  did 
he  mention  my  name.  Nor  did  he  mention  Joseph  Barnes  or  the  IPR. 
Wliat  is  more  significant,  he  did  not  mention  either  the  Red  gen- 
erals, Berzin  or  Barmine. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  May  I  inquire  once  more,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

Senator  Smith.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  use  research  methods  to 
endeavor  to  ascertain  whether  there  was  a  General  Berzin  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  No,  sir,  there  are  no  research  methods  at  my  dis- 
posal to  determine  that  fact. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  Did  you  make  your  best  efforts  to  determine  whether 
there  was  a  General  Berzin  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Having  no  means,  I  made  no  efforts. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3103 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Go  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  short,  Barmine's  testimony  can  best  be  described 
in  the  Avords  of  Barmine.  When  Senator  Ferguson  asked  him  whether 
(he  FBI  had  the  "evidence"  that  he  had  just  given  about  Barnes  and 
Lattimore,  he  said,  "Well,  if  you  call  it  evidence — "  (p.  211). 

It  reminds  me  of  a  little  story  in  Barmine's  book,  which  I  submit 
herewith  as  an  exhibit,  describing  how  a  Soviet  military  intelligence 
agent,  when  he  takes  a  powder  and  runs  out  of  the  Soviet  police 
state,  hires  out  as  an  expert  on  Soviet  skulduggery  and,  when  he 
runs  out  of  real  information,  has  to  invent  a  lot  of  new  stuff  in  order 
to  stay  in  the  racket.  It  reads  to  me  like  a  very  good  description  of 
Barmine  himself  as  well  as  of  his  native  American  counterpart, 
Budenz. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  What  book  are  you  referring  to,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Here,  Barmine's  book,  One  Who  Survived. 

I  would  like  to  hand  up  at  this  moment  a  copy  of  the  relevant  part 
of  the  text  of  Barmine's  book. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Have  you  read  that  book  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  have. 

Senator  Smith.  That  will  be  submitted  subject  to  the  Chairman 
passing  on  it  when  he  goes  over  it. 

(The  material  referred  to  was  marked  exhibit  475  and  appears  in 
the  appendix  on  p.  3704.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  turn  now  to  the  other  ex-Communist,  Karl 
August  Wittfogel.  In  his  testimony  Wittfogel  tried  to  creat  two 
impressions — that  in  the  early  years  of  our  acquaintance  we  were 
friendly  with  each  other  on  the  basis  of  mutual  Communist  sympa- 
thies, and  that  after  he  finally  stopped  being  a  Communist,  in  1939, 
he  broke  off  relations  with  me.  Both  of  these  pictures,  drawn  by  Witt- 
fogel's  inventive  hindsight,  are  maliciously  false. 

I  first  knew  Dr.  Wittfogel  in  Peking  in  1935  and  1936.  He  has  at- 
tempted to  show  that  at  this  time  I  knew  he  was  a  Communist  and 
must  therefore  have  been  one  myself.  He  does  not  claim  that  he  ever 
told  me  he  had  been  or  was  still  a  Communist.  I  did  not  consider  him 
one.  He  had  been  rescued  from  Hitler's  Germany  by  a  committee  of 
British  scholars,  an  active  member  of  which  was  the  distinguished 
authority  on  economic  history,  K.  H.  Tawney,  a  stanch  anti-Com- 
munist. 

The  flimsy  statements  by  which  Wittfogel  attempted  to  show  that 
I  knew  he  was  a  Communist  are  complete  nonsense.  The  chief  one 
is  a  story  that  in  my  presence  Dr.  Woodbridge  Bingham  had  asked 
him  if  he  had  ever  been  a  Communist  and  he  said  "No."  He  then  tried 
to  suggest  that  I  flashed  him  a  smile  implying  that  I  knew  that  what  he 
really  meant  was  that  he  was  a  Communist.  The  truth  is  that  I  have 
not  the  faintest  recollection  of  this  whole  conversation,  but  if  I  smiled 
at  all,  it  was  certainly  a  non-Communist  smile.  Now  I  would  be  will- 
ing to  believe  that  Communists  have  an  arsenal  of  secret  signals,  but 
I  would  never  suppose  that  it  included  anything  as  good-natured  as 
a  smile.  In  fact,  I  though  that  these  grim  conspirators  regarded  a 
smile  as  a  bourgeois  gesture — practically  as  an  enemy  of  the  state. 
If  I  am  wrong,  and  if  a  smile  is  a  secret  Red  signal,  I  confess  that  I 
used  to  smile  a  good  deal.  In  the  pre-McCarthy  days  I  used  to  think 
that  life  was  lots  of  fun. 


3104  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Senator  Smith.  May  I  ask  you  a  question  there  ?  Were  you  present 
"when  Wittf ogel  testified  in  this  room  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Did  you  have  any  representative  present  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Let  me  ask  my  wife  whether  she  was  there. 

She  was  there. 

Senator  Smith.  You  knew  when  he  was  going  to  testify,  did  you 
not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  was  announced  in  the  paper. 

Wittf  ogel  also  made  the  ridiculous  assertion  that  the  fact  that  I 
used  the  terms  "feudal'  'and  "feudal  survival"  in  describing  Asiatic 
societies  showed  that  I  was  a  Communist.  His  claim  that  these  terms 
are  nothing  but  litmus  papers  for  telling  Communists  from  non- 
Communists  is  ridiculous.  It  sounds  like  an  echo  from  the  religious 
disputes  and  persecutions  of  the  Middle  Ages,  when  professing  Chris- 
tians put  each  other  to  death  in  quarrels  over  the  difference  between 
"transsubstantiation"  and  "consubstantiation." 

On  this  rather  absurd  subject  Wittf  ogel  specifically  charges  that  in 
a  book  published  last  year,  Pivot  of  Asia,  I  dropped  my  academic 
disguise  and  let  the  heretical  truth  leak  out:  I  referred  to  "semi- 
feudal"  relations  in  the  Chinese  Central  Asian  province  of  Sinkiang. 
It  is  quite  true  that  I  used  the  phrase,  and  it  was  an  accuate  descrip- 
tion. I  am  sorry  that  I  did  not  know  that  the  Communists  had  a 
patent  on  the  term,  and  that  to  use  it  was  as  dangerous  as  it  is  to  smile» 

If  the  use  of  terms  like  "feudal  survival'  'is  a  test  of  communism 
the  following  quotation  may  be  of  interest.  It  is  from  the  American 
Anthropologist,  July-September  1951,  page  403,  and  is  from  a  review 
of  a  book  about  Japan : 

But  here  (in  Japan)  as  in  Germany,  industrialization  was  so  late  and  so  rapid 
that  many  feudal  elements  survived. 

The  author  who  thus  uses  the  hideous  and  forbidden  expression 
"feudal  elements"  is  Esther  S.  Goldfrank  (Mrs.  Karl-August  Witt- 
fogel).  I  hasten  to  say  I  know  nothing  of  her  political  views,  and  in 
any  event  I  wouldn't  accuse  Wittfogel  of  anything  on  account  of  his 
association  with  his  wife. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Then,  Mr.  Lattimore,  would  you  tell  the  committee, 
please,  why  you  dragged  Mrs.  Wittfogel  in  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Because  I  think  it  is  a  pertinent  illustration  of  the 
absurd  nonsense  of  Wittfogel's  talk  about  semi-feudalism  and  feudal 
survival,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Have  you  read  the  review  by  Mrs.  Wittfogel  whick 
you  quote  here  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  not  read  the  full  review,  no. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.,  You  quote  one  sentence  out  of  context,  is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  quote  one  sentence  which  here  I  think  is  a  com- 
plete statement  of  the  problem,  and  therefore  can  be  considered  in 
context. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  know,  and  if  so  will  you  assert,  whether 
Mrs.  Wittfogel  is  making  that  statement  as  her  own  or  as  a  summariza- 
tion of  what  was  said  in  the  book  that  she  reviewed  ? 

Mr.  LATriMORE.  I  couldn't  answer  that. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  do  not  know,  do  you  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3105 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Have  you  any  data  on  that? 

Mr.  SouKWiNE.  The  question  is.  Do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  don't. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Now,  not  knowing,  you  have  yet  presented  the  letter 
for  this  committee  as  though  it  were  her  own  opinion,  is  that  not 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  presented  it  as  a  quotation  from  a  review  by 
Mrs.  Wittfogel. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  You  think  that  is  an  adequate  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, sir? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  you  have  so  presented  it  without  having  seen 
the  whole  review  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  is  one  clear,  unequivocal  aspect  of  Wittf  ogel's 
testimony  that  demonstrates  that  he  was  lying  either  about  me  or  about 
his  own  severance  of  Communist  affiliation.  Wittfogel  stated  defi- 
nitely twice  that  he  finally  broke  all  Communist  connections  in  the 
summer  of  1939.  I  have  in  my  possession  many  long  letters  which 
show  clearly  that  he  remained  on  friendly  terms  with  me  for  8  years 
thereafter — that  is,  until  1947.  If  he  told  the  truth  about  his  separa- 
tion from  communism  in  1939  he  must  have  continued  to  think  of  me 
as  non-Communist,  at  least  until  1947,  when  we  had  our  last  exchange 
of  correspondence. 

Many  very  friendly  letters  which  he  wrote  to  me  in  1940  and  1941 
contain  such  phrases  as  "the  warmest  greetings  to  all  of  you,"  "I  am  so 
happy  to  see  you  soon  here,"  "yours  in  friendship,"  "your  new  book — 
looks  fine  and  it  reads  fine,"  "Love  to  all  of  you,  when  do  we  meet  ? " — 
none  of  which  sound  as  if  I  were  a  Communist  he  had  finally  broken 
with  in  1939. 

In  an  undated  letter  in  1941,  Wittfogel  wrote  to  me  as  follows: 

During  this  weelf  end  I  have  reread  your  Inner  Asian  Frontiers  and  McGovern. 
The  reading  of  the  two  boolis  made  it  clear  again  to  me  how  absolutely  superior 
your  analysis  and  presentation  is  not  only  to  his — he  is  a  dwarf — but  to  prac- 
tically everybody  who  has  ventured  into  an  analysis  of  Wirtschaft  and  Gesell- 
Bchaft  of  the  oasis.  Tour  analysis  really  seem  definite  and  classic.  I  shall 
follow  it  for  whatever  I  may  be  able  to  write  about  the  Asiatic  Oases.  I  hope 
to  be  not  too  stupid  a  disciple. 

During  the  war,  from  1941  through  1944, 1  had  very  little  time  for 
correspondence  with  anyone,  but,  in  a  letter  to  me  dated  March  4, 1945, 
praising  my  book  Solution  in  Asia,  he  wrote — and  this  is  the  same 
book  I  will  call  to  your  attention  that  Senator  Ferguson  has  suggested 
has  some  sort  of  Communist  coloration — he  wrote : 

I  have  delayed  writing  my  weekly  Sunday  letters  for  hours  because  I  could, 
not  tear  myself  away  from  your  Asiatic  Solution.  By  watching  my  action,  not 
my  words,  you  can  judge  how  great  the  power  of  attraction  of  your  new  book  is. 
You  are  really  an  expert  to  end  all  experts.  I  have  not  read  anything  for  a  long 
time,  that  made  me  think  so  much  about  the  various  aspects  of  the  postwar 
world.  This  is  a  fascinating  story,  one,  which,  I  hope,  will  be  read  much  and 
intensely,  because  you  certainly  show  that  the  political  leaders  have  to  act 
quickly,  wisely,  and  boldly,  or  else — But  I  am  sure,  you  are  right,  as  solid  a 
peace  has  to  be  made  as  possible  in  this  most  artfully  balanced  of  all  worlds. 
The  breath-taking  picture  of  a  world  dancing  ballet  on  a  swinging  tight  rope 
emerged  clearly  from  your  masterly  pen. 


3106  mSTITUTB   OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

This  is  the  letter  that  Wittfogel  tried  to  bypass  in  his  testimony, 
saying  that  he  had  barely  looked  at  the  book  and  wrote  me  a  nice  not© 
just  to  be  polite.     I  submit  all  of  these  letters  in  full  for  your  record. 

Senator  Smith.  We  will  receive  those,  subject  to  the  Chairman's 
permission. 

(For  the  letters  referred  to  see  exhibits  597  A,  B,  C,  D,  pp.  3611 
through  3614.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  From  this  time  until  1947  Wittfogel  remained 
friendly,  and  even  when  we  had  some  differences  of  opinion  he  did 
not  suggest  that  he  thought  me  pro-Communist  in  any  way. 

During  1947  we  had  a  disagreement  over  his  invitation  to  me,  at  the 
end  of  1946,  to  write  an  introduction  to  his  History  of  Chinese  Society : 
LIAO.  I  asked  him  to  be  allowed  to  read  the  book  before  writing 
the  introduction,  and  I  am  afraid  that  I  indicated  that  I  would  not 
write  an  introduction  without  being  given  a  chance  to  form  my  own 
opinion  about  the  work  I  was  supposed  to  sponsor  in  this  way.  This 
entirely  reasonable  request  didn't  seem  to  suit  Wittfogel  and  after 
several  letters  I  heard  no  more  from  him. 

My  guess  about  the  matter  is  that  Wittfogel  staged  this  little  ma- 
neuver because,  with  the  mounting  China  Lobby  attacks  on  the  IPE. 
for  harboing  Communists,  with  constant  reiteration  of  the  familiar 
Kohlberg  attacks  on  me,  he  was  becoming  alarmed  about  his  own  con- 
cealed Communist  connections,  and  decided  that  he  had  better  join 
the  pack  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  being  destroyed  by  it.  Senator 
McCarran's  indication,  at  the  opening  of  these  hearings,  that  if  ex- 
Communists  informed  on  other  people  all  would  be  forgiven,  pro- 
vided this  tortured  man  Wittfogel  with  a  perfect  avenue  to  the  new 
social  security. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  a  few  questions  ? 

Senator  Smith.  Yes. 

Mr.  SoTJRwiNE.  One  question  I  would  like  to  ask  is  this:  Do  you 
believe  that  Communists  or  former  Communists  are  performing  a 
service  for  the  United  States  when  they  come  forward  and  testify? 

Mr.  Latiimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  believe  that  the  kind  of  informa- 
tion about  the  inside  workings  of  the  Communist  Party  that  can  be 
obtained  by  ex-Communists,  by  FBI  agents  passing  as  Communists 
in  the  Communist  Party,  and  so  on,  is  absolutely  essential  to  our  secu- 
rity. I  believe  that  there  are  probably  ex-Communists  who  are  of 
great  value. 

But  I  believe  that  it  is  a  great  temptation  to  the  ex-Communist  to 
market  his  wares  at  more  than  their  true  value,  and  to  go  on  purport- 
ing to  give  testimony  when  he  has  exhausted  his  real  testimony. 

Therefore,  I  believe  that  it  is  extremely  necessary,  especially  in 
pubic  hearings,  where  people,  not  only  people's  reputation  but  their 
livelihood  is  affected,  that  there  should  be  the  severest  testing  of  the 
credibility  of  any  ex-Communist  used,  and  the  validity  of  his 
testimony. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  I  think  in  justice  to  you  one  matter 
should  be  shown.     You  are  bilingual ;  are  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  bilingual  usually  means  equally  versed  in  two 
languages. 

]\fr.  SouRAviNE.  Then  let  me  say  are  you  multilingual,  do  you  have 
several  languages  at  your  command? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  several  of  them  that  I  speak,  none  of  them 
as  well  as  I  sjjeak  English,  of  course. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3107 

Mr.  SouRWiMK.  What  are  they,  sir? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  speak  Chinese  very  well.  I  speak  Mongol  pretty 
well.  I  speak  French  enough  to  get  along.  I  speak  German  enough  to 
stammer  along,  and  to  understand  other  people's  conversation,  and  I 
have  a  reading  knowledge  of  Russian,  a  considerable  remnant  of  a 
reading  knowledge  of  Latin,  and  a  few  tattered  remnants  of  a  reading 
knowledge  of  Greek.  I  could  also  at  one  time  read  Swedish,  but  I  am 
out  of  practice  now. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Do  you  have  access  to  a  Soviet  encyclopedia  or  a 
"Who's  Who"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  is  a  copy  of  the  Great  Soviet  Encyclopedia 
in  the  library  at  Johns  Hopkins. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  you  check  it  or  have  it  checked  to  find  out 
whether  General  Berzin  was  mentioned  therein  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't. 

Mr.  SouR\viNE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  paper.  I  would 
like  to  ask  Mr.  Mandel  what  it  is. 

Mr.  IVL^NDEL.  This  is  a  translation  submitted  by  the  Library  of 
Congress  in  reference  to  Ian  Antonovich  Berzin,  and  it  is  a  transla- 
tion from  volume  5,  pages  626-627  of  the  Soviet  Encyclopedia,  1927. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  I  offer  this  for  the  record. 

Senator  Smith.  You  may  read  it. 

Mr.  Sour  WINE.  Very  well. 

Senator  Smith.  This  is  in  English? 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Eead  it,  then. 

Mr.  SouRWixE.  The  names  I  may  mispronounce  as  they  are  Russian 
names.    It  reads  as  follows: 

ElsHiBiT  474 

Translation 

[Translation  from  vol.  V,  col.  626-627  of  the  Bol'shaia  Sovetskaia  Entsiklopediia,  Moscow, 

19271 

Berzin,  Ian  Antonovich  ("Pavel  Vasil'evitcli,"  "Zemelis,"  "Vinter")  born  in 
18S1,  Communist  party-worker.  He  hails  from  a  peasant  family  in  the  Livonian 
Province.  As  a  village  teacher  he  conducted  revolutionary  activities  among  the 
peasants.  He  joined  the  Social  Democratic  Party  of  Latvia  in  1902.  In  1904 
he  was  arrested  and  banished  to  the  Olonets  Province  from  which  he  escaped  in 
1905.  During  the  1905  revolution  Berzin  was  active  as  a  propagandist  and 
agitator  in  the  Baltic  region.  He  was  arrested  by  a  punitive  detachment  of  Gen- 
eral Orlov  in  December  1905.  Upon  his  release  from  prison  in  1907  Berzin  worked 
in  Petersburg  as  secretary  of  the  Committee  of  the  Russian  Social  Democratic 
Workers'  Party.  At  the  same  time  he  was  elected  as  a  delegate  to  the  London 
Congress.  He  emigrated  in  1908,  lived  in  Switzerland,  France,  Belgium,  England, 
and  in  the  United  States,  working  in  various  party  organizations,  became  editor 
and  collaborator  of  the  Latvian  organs  of  Bolshevik  orientation  (such  as  the 
central  organ  of  the  Social  Democrats  of  Latvia  "Tsinia"  and  others).  In  1915 
he  took  part  in  the  Zimmerwald  Conference  and  in  the  founding  of  the  "Zimmer- 
wald  Left."  In  1916  and  1917  he  was  editor  of  the  Latvian  Social  Democratic 
newspaper  "Stradneks"  in  Boston  and  of  the  Russian  left  wing— internationalist 
newspaper  "Novyi  Mir"  (The  New  World)  in  New  York.  In  1917  he  was  elected 
at  the  Sixth  Congress  as  a  member  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Russian 
Social  Democratic  Workers'  Party  (of  Bolsheviks)  and  of  the  Central  Com- 
mittee of  the  Social  Democrats  of  Latvia.  At  the  Second  Congress  of  the  Soviets 
he  was  elected  member  of  the  All-Union  Central  Executive  Committee.  In  1918 
he  was  appointed  Plenipotentiary  Representative  to  Switzerland,  and  in  1919 
People's  Commissar  of  Instruction  for  Latvia.  From  1919  to  1920  he  was  secre- 
tary of  the  Comintern.    In  1920  he  headed  the  delegation  for  peace  negotiations 


3108  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

with  Finland  and  afterwards  he  became  Plenipotentiary  Representative  to  Fin- 
land. From  1921  to  1925  he  was  attached  to  the  Embassy  in  England.  Since 
August  1925  he  has  been  the  Plenipotentiary  Representative  of  the  U.  S.  S,  R. 
in  Austria.  Berzin's  literai-y  works,  chiefly  in  the  Latvian  language,  encompass 
a  great  variety  of  fields  ranging  from  politics  to  problems  of  cultural  and  art 
criticism. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Does  it  mention  he  is  a  pal  of  Barmine's  ? 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  This  is  from  the  Soviet  dictionary  of  1927,  sir,  as 
previously  stated.  It  is  offered  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  that  there  was  such  a  person  as  Berzin. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right ;  go  ahead. 

(The  material  referred  to  was  marked  exhibit  474  and  was  read  in 
full  by  counsel.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  now  disposed  of  the  charges  against  me  per- 
sonally. But  I  am  also  concerned  with  something  of  far  greater  im- 
portance— the  fate  of  the  far-eastern  policy  of  our  country. 

The  threat  of  sabotage  to  our  far-eastern  policy  transcends  the  inter- 
est of  the  individual  citizen.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 
I  have  been  openly  printing,  publishing,  and  stating  in  public  lec- 
tures exactly  what  I  think  about  a  wide  range  of  problems.  My  field 
has  been  the  Far  East  in  general,  more  specifically  China,  and  still  more 
specifically  the  border  lands  between  China  and  Russia.  The  record 
shows  that  I  have  never  consistently  agreed  with  any  ideology,  school 
of  thought,  group,  trend,  or  individual.  I  have  at  times  changed  my 
own  opinions,  but  only  on  the  basis  of  changed  conditions,  more  ma- 
ture consideration,  or  additional  data ;  never  because  of  being  hypno- 
tized, intimidated,  or  bought. 

I  do  not  find  it  surprising,  or  anything  to  be  ashamed  of,  that  I 
have  at  times  made  mistakes.  But,  whatever  the  mistakes  I  have  made, 
I  have  never  tried  to  deliver  the  policy  of  my  country  into  the  hands 
of  a  foreign  power,  as  the  Communists  have  tried  to  deliver  it  to 
the  Soviet  Union,  and  the  China  lobby  is  trying  to  deliver  it  into  the 
hands  of  Chiang  Kai-shek. 

On  the  record  of  the  situation  in  China  and  changes  in  American 
policy  toward  China,  the  issue.  Senators,  is  not  one  of  domestic  poli- 
tics, or  McCarthy's  reelection,  or  of  who  will  benefit,  politically  or 
otherwise,  from  denunciation  of  me,  Mr.  Vincent,  or  others.  The  great 
issue  is  what  about  China  ?  Are  we  on  the  right  track  ?  Or  has  United 
States  policy  been  affected  by  disloyal  or  subversive  persons? 

When  discussing  China,  it  is  of  crucial  importance  to  put  events  into 
their  proper  perspective  in  history.  I  ask  you,  Senators,  if  you  are 
interested  in  facts,  kindly  to  allow  them  to  be  presented  in  the  context 
of  their  time.  If  you  do  not,  the  result  will  not  be  clarification  but  a 
continuation  of  the  distortion  and  confusion  that  have  characterized 
your  inquiry  to  date. 

There  have  been  malicious  and  pointless  attempts  to  prove  that  I 
and  other  misrepresented  the  Chinese  Communists  as  "different"  from, 
the  Russians,  or  as  mere  "agrarian  radicals."  It  was  proved  before 
the  Tydings  committee  that  I  never  did.  Neither,  I  believe,  did  the 
career  far-eastern  experts  of  the  State  Department.  But  I  offer  you, 
for  the  record,  an  exhibit  showing  that  Gen.  Pat  Hurley ;  Freda  Utley, 
of  the  China  Lobby;  and  Hallett  Abend,  of  the  New  York  Times,  did 
say  that  the  Chinese  Communists  were  not  real  Communists.  Now, 
here  again,  it  would  be  utter  nonsense  to  suggest  that  this  is  a  sign  of 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3109 

communism  or  procommunism.  The  judgment  that  Patrick  Hurley, 
for  example,  expressed  about  the  Chinese  Communists  was  a  perfectly 
possible  conclusion  for  a  man  to  arrive  at  honestly  at  that  time.  He 
may  have  been  wrong — but  he  was  not  attempting  to  distort  the  facts 
or  subvert  his  country. 

May  I  hand  in  here  these  quotations  that  I  have  just  referred  to, 
Senator? 

Senator  Smith.  They  will  be  received,  subject  to  the  decision  of  the 
chairman  for  insertion  in  the  record. 

(For  the  material  referred  to,  see  exhibit  476  in  appendix  I  of  pt. 
10,  p.  3705.) 

Mr,  Lattimore.  One  of  the  principal  targets  of  the  China  Lobby's 
criticism  in  the  controversy  about  the  history  of  our  Chinese  policy 
has  been  the  proposal  for  a  coalition  between  the  Nationalists  and  the 
Communists — or  more  properly  for  a  working  arrangement  between 
the  two,  in  order  to  avoid  a  civil  war  in  which,  as  informed  observers 
knew  and  as  events  proved,  the  Chiang  government  would  be  bound 
to  lose.  Even  General  Marshall's  motives  have  been  assailed  by  the 
China  Lobby  because  he  advocated  this,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  is 
a  matter  of  record  that  this  policy  was  first  sponsored  by  Secretary  of 
State  Byrnes,  who  has  never  been  attacked  for  it  and  should  not  be. 

It  is  nonsense  to  say,  as  had  been  dogmatically  asserted  before  this 
committee,  that  coalition  or  cooperation  with  Communists  always 
ends  with  the  Communists  taking  over. 

The  Free  French  cooperated  with  the  Communists,  and  the  Commu- 
nists did  not  take  over  France.  Today  about  a  third  of  the  French 
Deputies  are  Communists. 

The  postwar  Government  of  Burma  began  as  a  coalition  with  Com- 
munists, but  the  Communists  were  later  expelled  and  armed  action 
taken  against  them. 

The  Indonesian  Nationalist  movement  began  as  a  united  front  with 
Communists,  but  the  Indonesian  Government  has  since  taken  armed 
action  to  suppress  them. 

The  British  cooperated  during  the  war  with  Indian  Commimifits, 
but  the  Communists  did  not  take  over  India. 

In  saying  this  I  do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood  as  advocating 
collaboration  with  Communists.  This  is  always  dangerous — as  dan- 
gerous as  a  partnership  with  a  bear.  It  should  be  tolerated  only 
where  there  is  no  alternative.  My  point  is  only  that  coalition  is  not 
necessarily  surrender,  and  that  coalition  may  reasonably  be  advo- 
cated in  particular  circumstances  by  persons  whose  sole  objective  is 
the  ultimate  defeat  of  communism. 

In  China  too  the  idea  of  coalition  and  compromise  was  not  a  foolish 
idea  dreamed  up  in  Washington.  There  was  a  solid  basis  for  the 
view  that  a  coalition  was  the  only  alternative  to  the  certain  triumph 
of  communism.  And  there  was  a  solid  basis  for  the  hope  that  it  might 
give  the  non-Communist  groups  time  to  reorganize,  and  eventually  to 
oust  the  Communists. 

If  I  may  make  an  interpolation  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  change  "eventually  to  oust  the  Communists"  so  as  to  read  "and 
eventually  to  dominate  the  situation." 

The  reason  I  suggest  the  change  is  that  at  that  time,  that  is,  right 
at  the  end  of  the  war,  the  precedence  of  the  ousting  of  the  Commu- 


3110  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

nists  for  the  French  and  Italian  Governments  had  not  yet  been  estab- 
lished, and  it  might  seem  as  if  I  were  claiming  a  little  too  much  prec- 
edence by  talking  in  the  thing  in  the  context  of  1945. 

Senator  Jenner.  May  I  ask  a  question  ? 

You  say  that  the  Chiang  government  was  bound  to  lose  if  the 
civil  war  was  started.  Did  the  Nationalists  have  more  troops  than 
the  Communists,  or  fewer? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  not  quite  sure  of  what  you  said. 

Senator  Jexner.  Did  the  Nationalists  have  more  troops? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  but  before  that  you  said 

Senator  Jenner.  You  said  the  Chiang  government  was  bound  to 
lose  if  the  civil  war  was  started. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  the  civil  war  was  started.     No. 

Senator  Jenner.  Well,  at  this  particular  time  in  history,  did  the 
Nationalists  have  more  troops  than  the  Communists,  or  fewer  troops? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  they  had  a  good  many  more. 

Senator  Jenner.  Were  the  Communist  troops  trained  for  other  than 
guerrilla  war? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  I  am  not  sure  of  to  answer  that  question. 

Senator  Jenner.  Was  Under  Secretary  Acheson  correct  on  June  19, 
1946,  when  he  testified  before  the  House  Foreign  Affairs  Committee 
that  Chiang  had  four  times  as  many  troops  as  the  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Presumably  he  was  right.  I  don't  have  the  figures 
to  check  it. 

Senator  Jenner.  Was  he  correct  when  he  said  that  the  Commu- 
nists needed  American  minimum  training,  and  I  quote  from  him, 
and  niinimum  quantities  of  equipment,  needed  American  military 
training  and  minimum  quantities  of  equpment? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know  about  that.  Senator. 

Senator  Smith.  Are  you  sure  you  mean  the  Communists  and  not 
the  Nationalists? 

Senator  Jenner.  He  said  that.  That  is  the  record  of  June  1946. 
What  I  want  to  bring  out  is  how  could  the  Communists  have  won 
without  Russia's  help  if  the  Nationalists  had  four  times  the  number 
of  troops  that  the  Communists  did?  How  could  they  have  possibly 
won  without  the  Communist  help  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  A  recent  British  authority  on  the  subject  said  that 
they  had  two  invaluable  allies,  the  Chinese  Communists,  that  one  was 
•Chiang  Kai-shek  and  the  other  was  the  Republican  Party  of  the 
United  States. 

Senator  Jenner.  Thank  you  very  much. 

^Ir.  Lattimore.  I  can  give  you  the  exact  reference.  The  book  is 
called  Asia  and  the  West. 

Senator  Smith.  Who  wrote  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  by  a  man  named  Maurice  Zinkin,  a  former 
member  of  the  Indian  Civil  Service,  who  now  represents  a  large  cor- 
poration in  India. 

Senator  Jenner.  Then  it  was  the  Republican  Party  that  withheld 
the  aid  to  Chiang's  Nationalist  Government;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  the  author. I  have  quoted  was  making  a 
satirical  reference  to  the  fact  that,  as  the  civil  war  drew  to  a  closei 
with  the  Nationalists  being  steadily  defeated,  the  fact  that  the  Na- 
tionalists were  receiving  American  arms  resulted  in  transferring  to 
the  Communists  in  China  the  idea  of  nationalism  so  that  the  nation- 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3111 

alist  idea  was  captured  away  from  the  Nationalists  by  the  Ck)mmu- 
nists. 

Senator  Jenner.  And  then  it  was  the  Republican  Party  that  sent 
General  Marshall  to  China  with  his  mission  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  we  have  to  talk  here  in  terms  of  context. 

Senator  Jenner.  You  gave  me  an  answer ;  you  said  two  things,  the 
invaluable  aid  of  Chiang  and  the  Republican  Party.  I  want  to  find 
out  if  the  Republican  Party  sent  General  Marshall  over  to  force  Chiang 
Kai-shek  to  form  a  united  government  to  take  the  Communists  into 
his  Republic  and  into  his  army. 

Senator  Smith.  If  it  is  available,  he  should  be  able  to  give  it. 

Senator  Jenner.  It  is  available.  He  made  the  answer  of  the  two 
invaluable  things. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Republican  Party  did  not  send  General  Mar- 
■  shall  to  China.    He  was  sent  by  the  administration. 

But  if  I  may  amend  the  way  you  put  the  question,  Senator,  I 
would  suggest  that  General  Marshall  was  not  sent  to  force  Chiang 
Kai-shek  to  accept  the  Communists. 

Senator  Jenner.  What  was  the  result  of  General  Marshall's  mis- 
sion? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  result  of  General  Marshall's  mission  was  that 
he  failed  to  negotiate  a  compromise  in  China. 

Senator  Jenner.  After  being  there  how  long? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Let  me  see,  about  1  year,  I  think. 

Senator  Jenner.  He  talked  a  little  bit  longer  than  they  are  talking 
in  Korea.  They  are  talking  8  months  in  Korea,  and  he  talked  a  little 
longer  than  that,  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  accept  your  statement. 

Senator  Jenner.  What  was  the  report  that  he  brought  back  to  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  report  that  he  brought  back  was  that  his  at- 
tempts at  negotiation  had  been  defeated  primarily  by  the  intransi- 
gents on  both  sides. 

Senator  Jenner.  During  this  period  of  time,  the  Republican  Party, 
had  they  failed  to  vote  appropriations  to  help  Chiang  Kai-shek? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  answer  you  on  the  record. 

Senator  Jenner.  Was  the  money  that  was  appropriated  by  us  used, 
was  the  intent  of  Congress  used  to  help  Chiang  Kai-shek  in  his  fight 
against  the  Communists?    Was  it  used? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  General  Chiang  was  not  short  of 
munitions. 

Senator  Jenner.  And  at  the  time  General  Marshall  arrived  in 
China,  the  Nationalists  had  four  times  the  number  of  troops  as  the 
Communists  had? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  were  already  being  warned  by  General  Wede- 
meyer  not  to  overextend  themselves. 

Senator  Jenner.  And  yet  your  answer  to  these  facts  is  that  the 
Republican  Party  and  General  Chiang  Kai-shek  caused  the  downfall 
of  the  Nationalist  Government  in  China  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  quoted  a  satirical  comment  by  the  British  author. 

Senator  Smith.  May  I  ask  a  question  there,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Were  you  in  China  while  General  Marshall  was  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir ;  I  wasn't.  Wait  a  minute,  now.  I  want  to 
be  absolutely  accurate  on  this. 


3112  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

In  the  week  of  Christmas,  1945,  to  New  Year's  1946  I  was  briefly  in 
Shanghai  and  Peiping  on  a  visit  connected  with  the  work  of  the  rep- 
arations mission  in  Japan. 

I  am  not  sure  whether  General  Marshall  was  in  China  at  the  mo- 
ment or  out  of  China  for  a  visit.    But  I  didn't  see  him. 

Senator  Smith.  Wliat  I  was  pointing  to  was,  was  the  trip  that  you 
made  with  Mr.  Henry  Wallace  and  some  other  persons,  through  Rus- 
sia, I  believe,  and  Mongolia,  did  you  go  down  to  China  on  that  trip? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  Wliat  year  was  that? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  1944. 

Senator  Smith.  And  how  long  were  you  gone  on  that  trip? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Approximately  2  months,  I  think. 

Senator  Smith.  Up  to  that  time  had  the  Chinese  Nationalists,  about 
that  time,  been  holding  their  own,  so  to  speak,  if  we  may  know,  in 
their  fight  with  the  Communists  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Up  to  that  moment  there  was  officially  no  fighting 
between  the  Nationalists  and  the  Communists. 

Senator  Smith.  What  I  meant  was  had  the  Nationalists  up  to  that 
time  held  their  ground?  They  hadn't  been  run  over  like  they  were 
later? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  They  lost  a  lot  of  ground  to  the  Japanese.  I  don't 
think  they  lost  any  ground  to  the  Communists. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  what  I  mean.  Some  time  after  that  trip 
they  did  begin  losing  a  lot  of  ground  to  the  Communists,  did  they 
not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  they  lost  it  to  the  Japanese,  not  to 
the  Communists  as  long  as  the  war  lasted. 

Senator  Smith.  When  did  they  begin  losing  ground  to  the  Com- 
munists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  after  the  civil  war  began. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  remember  what  time,  what  year? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  is  rather  hard  to  date  because  there 
was  a  certain  amount  of  scrappy  fighting  between  the  Nationalist 
troops  and  the  Communist  troops  which  General  Marshall  tried  to 
halt  with  his  famous  truce  teams,  and  so  on;  but  the  real  fighting 
began  in  1946. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  all,  unless  you  want  to  say  something  else 
about  the  Republican  Party. 

Senator  Jenner.  I  am  glad  to  find  out  who  sold  them  out. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Senator,  is  this  a  good  time  to  break  today  ? 

Senator  Smith.  No;  we  will  go  on  until  we  finish  this.  We  only 
have  seven  more  pages.     We  want  to  finish. 

Have  you  any  questions  now  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  No,  sir ;  not  now. 

Senator  Smith.  All  right,  you  may  go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  proceed. 

There  had  in  fact,  been  a  coalition  in  China  from  1937  to  about 
1944.  It  had  worked.  It  had  not  been  dominated  or  captured  by 
the  Communists,  and  it  had  saved  China  from  Japan.  The  Byrnes- 
Marsliall  policy  was  not  a  new  experiment.  It  was  an  attempt  to 
restore  and  prolonged  the  previous  combination  that  had  been  dom- 
inated by  Chiang  Kai-shek. 

Look  at  the  historical  record. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3113 

Before  Pearl  Harbor,  the  overwhelming  issue  in  China  was  the 
issue  of  Japanese  aggression.  In  1937,  the  Chinese  formed  what  they 
called  a  united  front,  including  the  Communists  and  Chiang's  Na- 
tionalists, against  further  Japanese  encroaclmient.  It  is  of  cardinal 
significance — and  it  conditions  every  subsequent  event — that  this 
united  front  enabled  China  to  continue  the  fight  against  Japan — ^^with 
which  we  were  also  at  war  after  December  1941 ;  and  that  it  was  so 
clearly  controlled  by  Chiang  Kai-shek  and  his  party  that  foreign  aid, 
both  ours  and  Eussia's,  was  received  directly  only  by  Chiang  Kai- 
shek,  not  by  the  Communists. 

By  1944,  or  perhaps  as  early  as  1943,  while  we  were  still  in  bitter 
war  with  Japan,  this  coalition  had  fallen  apart  so  much  that  Ameri- 
can representatives,  diplomatic,  military,  and  economic  were  seriously 
worried.  We  were  making  every  effort  to  strengthen  Chiang  Kai- 
shek,  militarily  and  economically,  but  our  help  was  being  wasted 
through  inefficiency  and  corruption.  Some  experienced  observers  were 
already  beginning  to  believe  that  Chiang  Kai-shek's  part  of  free 
China  was  in  danger  of  being  completely  conquered  by  the  Japanese. 
Some  of  these  observers,  including  American  military  officers,  even 
felt  that  the  American  Govermnent  ought  to  assert  its  right  to  send 
supplies  to  the  Communist  areas  of  resistance.  Their  argument  was 
that  we  must  be  prepared  to  keep  up  resistance  to  the  Japanese  some- 
where in  China,  even  if  it  was  Communist  "resistance,  just  as  we  were 
doing  everything  we  could  to  keep  Communist  Russia  in  the  war 
against  Germany. 

If  I  had  seen  at  that  time  some  of  the  reports  that  were  published 
later  in  the  white  paper,  I  might  have  taken  a  position  in  this  con- 
troversy ;  but  I  did  not  see  them  and  so  simply  maintained  my  previous 
position  in  general  support  of  Chinese  resistance,  and  later  supported 
the  policy  that  General  Marshall  was  trying  to  carry  out. 

But  I  believe  that  this  j)eriod  has  been  well  summed  up  by  Mr. 
Joseph  Alsop.  In  a  column  on  July  25,  1951,  he  pointed  out  that  the 
argimient  for  direct  American  dealings  with  the  Communist-led  forces 
had  been  ably  presented  by  Mr.  Jolm  Davies,  of  the  State  Department, 
who  was  prophesying  in  1943-44  that  at  the  end  of  the  war  the  Com- 
munists were  going  to  come  out  on  top ;  but  that  if  America  gave  them 
moderate  aid  it  would  promote  their  confidence  in  America,  and  thus 
achieve  a  division  between  them  and  the  Kremlin.  Mr.  Alsop  had 
opposed  Mr.  Davies'  position  at  the  time,  but  in  his  column  he  con- 
cludes: 

Davies  made  what  must  now  be  accounted  an  extremely  brilliant  deduction — 
that  Titoism  was  possible,  before  Titoism  had  been  heard  of — and  if  Davies' 
recommendations  had  been  followed,  I  now  believe  he  would  have  been  proven 
right. 

Also,  there  is  an  important  fact  that  has  not  been  brought  out  before 
this  committee.  General  Marshall's  proposals  were  not  an  attempt 
to  force  Chiang,  alone  and  without  allies,  into  cooperation  with  the 
Communists.  Much  hope  was  placed  in  the  minority  parties  com- 
posing the  Democratic  League,  when  General  Marshall  called — 

a  splendid  group  of  men,  but  who  as  yet  lack  the  political  power  to  exercise  a 
controlling  influence.  Successful  action  on  their  part  under  the  leadership  of 
Generalissimo  Chiang  Kai-shek  would,  I  believe,  lead  to  unity  through  good 
government  (White  Paper,  p.  688). 


3114  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

If  Chiang  had  known  how  to  strengthen  those  allies  and  undertake 
with  them  a  progiam  of  reforms  it  would  have  been  possible  to  take 
the  steam  out  of  the  Communist  drive  to  political  power.  Chiang's- 
failure  to  restrain  the  hostility  and  brutality  of  his  rightwing  sup- 
porters toward  this  group  did  much  to  destroy  the  support  that  moder- 
ate and  liberal  Chinese  had  been  given  him. 

In  that  situation  some  of  our  best  qualified  observers  had  already 
predicted  that  if  the  Communist  problem  were  put  to  the  test  of  force- 
in  a  civil  war,  the  attempt  would  end  in  disaster.  We  all  know  that 
the  attempt  was  made,  that  it  did  end  in  disaster,  and  that  General 
Marshall,  put  the  blame  for  the  failure  of  his  negotiations  on  the  in- 
transigeants  of  both  Chiang  Kai-shek's  side  and  the  Communist  side. 
We  also  know  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  American  military  experts 
who  had  most  to  do  with  Chiang's  armies  that  Chiang  overreached 
himself  by  invading  Manchuria  too  deeply,  against  the  advice  of 
General  Wedemeyer,  and  that,  in  the  words  of  our  own  General  Barr : 

No  battle  has  been  lost  since  my  arrival  due  to  lack  of  ammunition  or  equip- 
ment. Their  military  debacles,  in  my  opinion  can  all  be  attributed  to  the 
world's  worse  leadership  and  many  other  morale-destroying  factors  that  led  to 
a  complete  loss  of  the  will  to  fight  (hearings  before  Committee  on  Armed  Serv- 
ices and  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  U.  S.  Senate,  June  1951,  p.  1S56). 

That,  Senators,  is  the  outline  of  what  happened.  Every  possible 
effort  has  been  made,  by  Chiang's  representatives  and  by  the  China 
lobby  to  confuse  the  story,  but  the  record  speaks  for  itself.  Let  me 
repeat:  there  had  been  a  united  front,  or  loosely  spcakhig,  a  coalition 
of  Chiang's  party  and  the  Comnnmists  from  1937  to  1944.  It  had 
worked  in  the  sense  that  Chiang  had  been  able  to  dominate  it,  and 
that  China  had  been  able  to  defend  itself  against  Japan,  and  thereby 
to  help  itself  and  us.  Coalition  proposals  by  General  Marshall  and 
others  were  made  in  the  light  of  this  history  and  of  the  clear,  ines- 
capable facts  known  to  all  of  us  who  are  not  blinded  by  interest  or 
idolatory,  that  Chiang's  party  was  falling  apart — and  if  put  to  the 
test  would  fall  and  the  Communists  would  prevail. 

And  now  what?  How  are  we  to  handle  the  continuing  conse- 
quences of  the  vast  shift  in  the  world  balance  of  power  represented 
by  Cliina  under  the  control  of  a  Communist  government  friendly  to 
Moscow  ? 

Some,  including  Chiang's  refugee  government  and  the  China  lobby, 
want  to  involve  us  in  a  war  with  Russia  on  the  mainland  of  China, 
the  sooner  the  better.  I  agree  with  General  Bradley  that  this  would 
be  "wrong  war,  wrong  time,  wrong  place." 

Some  want  us  to  follow  a  policy  of  blockade,  raids,  and  landings, 
aid  to  anti-Communist  guerrillas,  and  the  activities  of  what  Congress- 
man Walter  Judd  calls  a  United  States  "department  of  dirty  tricks." 
I  agree  with  the  general  consensus  of  the  China  experts  in  Great 
Britain  that  this  would  result  merely  in  welding  tighter  the  alliance 
between  Peking  Reds  and  Kremlin  Reds,  and  an  increase  in  the  rate 
of  Russian  aid  and  in  completing  the  conversion  of  China  into  a 
police  state  on  the  model  of  the  Russian  police  state. 

Some  believe  that  we  should  write  off  China  as  a  total  loss.  Again, 
I  do  not  agree. 

As  the  basis  for  a  policy  that  might  work,  I  suggest  the  follow- 
ing principles 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3115 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  So  that  the  record  might  be  clear,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  another  question. 

From  here  on  to  the  end  of  the  statement,  you  are  giving  your  rec- 
ommendations with  regard  to  foreign  policy  that  the  United  States 
should  follow ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  quite  right. 

Senator  Smith.  I  do  not  think  that  has  any  place  in  this  invBS- 
tigation. 

Senator  Jenner.  It  could  be  submitted  for  the  record. 

Senator  Smith.  Yes.  We  will  stop  right  there.  The  statement 
will  be  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  correct  myself?  I  have  been 
reading  along  and  lost  track  of  things. 

Mr.  Sourwine  asked  me  if,  from  there  to  the  end,  it  was  my  recom- 
mendation of  foreign  policy.  There  are  seven  points  of  foreign 
policy  here,  but  the  remainder,  from  the  bottom  of  page  48  to  50 
contains  matter  which  I  think  is  not  direct  recommendations  of  a 
foreign  policy  of  this  country. 

Senator  Smith.  That  is  dealing  with  the  future  anyway.  I  say 
that  it  can  be  put  into  the  record. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question. 

In  relation  to  the  letters  and  the  memoranda  to  the  President, 
and  your  talk,  did  you  distinguish  between  being  an  adviser  to  the 
State  Department  and  the  President?  Do  you  draw  any  distinc- 
tion there  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  was  simply  a  citizen  who  wanted  to  put 
some  ideas  before  the  President. 

Senator  Ferguson,  But  when  you  were  asked  at  times,  as  I  under- 
stand it — and  I  want  you  to  correct  me  if  I  am  not  correct — you 
claimed  you  were  never  an  adviser  to  the  State  Department. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  quite  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  did  you  distinguish  then  between  that 
and  being  an  adviser  to  the  President? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  I  would  certainly  distinguish.  Senator,  but  I  don't 
think  I  was  being  an  adviser  to  the  President. 

Senator  Ferguson,  When  a  man  writes  the  letter  and  the  two 
memoranda,  or  the  one  with  the  two  parts  of  it,  and  the  different 
letters,  and  saying  how  important  it  was  that  you  see  the  President 
before  he  made  commitments,  in  effect,  do  you  say  that  is  not  in  there? 
You  are  shaking  your  head, 

Mr,  FoRTAS.  I  do  not  think  that  Avas  what  the  letter  said. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Let  me  have  the  letter. 

Reading  from  the  letter  of  June  20 : 

Since  I  am  most  anxious  that  the  views  which  I  represent  should  be  laid 
before  the  President  for  his  consideration  before  his  forthcoming  meeting  with 
Prime  Minister  Churchill  and  Marshal  Stiilin,  I  hope  very  much  that  you  will 
find  it  possible  to  arrange  an  appointment  for  me  as  soon  as  possible  after  the 
President  returns  from  San  Francisco. 

And  then  you  give  him  the  places  that  you  can  be  reached.  Do  you 
still  say  that  he  did  not  want  to  act  as  an  adviser  to  the  President, 
counsel  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  No ;  I  say  that  is  not  the  point. 

Senator  Ferguson.  What  is  the  point?  Why  were  you  shaking 
your  head  when  I  was  giving  the  question? 


3116  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

I  do  not  mind  being  criticized  from  the  witness,  I  expect  it  from 
the  witness.     But  I  do  not  expect  that  from  the  counsel. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Senator,  in  the  first  place  I  was  not  criticizing  you. 
And  in  the  second  place,  I  believe,  and  the  record  will  show — or  at 
least  I  understood  and  the  record  will  show  whether  it  was  or  not — 
your  reference  was  to  the  letter  which  Mr.  Lattimore  sent  to  the 
President. 

Senator  Ferguson.  The  record  will  show  that  I  was  asking  about 
his  desire  to  give  advice. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  You  can  ask  the  question  and  I  am  sure  he  will  answer 
it.  But  I  thought  you  were  referring  to  the  witness'  letter  to  the 
President. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  saw  I  had  a  paper  in  my  hand,  and  you 
thought  I  was  looking  at  it.     It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  a  question  of  the  choice  of  words  and  the 
meaning  of  words  to  different  people. 

In  my  opinion,  an  adviser  is  a  person  who  is  retained  or  requested 
to  act  as  an  adviser.  I  don't  think  that  the  hundreds,  in  fact  thou- 
sands, of  people  who  ask  to  see  the  President  of  the  United  States  in 
the  course  of  a  year  in  order  to  make  suggestions  of  various  kinds  can 
accurately  be  classified  as  advisers. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So  you  are  now  saying  that  the  reason  you  did 
not  mention  the  President  and  these  letters,  and  this  memorandum, 
was  that  you  figured  that  you  were  offering  your  advice,  and  he  was 
not  requesting  it.     Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Smith.  Are  you  through? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Had  you  ever  approved  the  plan  that  General 
Marshall  was  sent  to  China  to  put  into  effect  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  approved  the  sending  of  General  Marshall,  and 
I  approved  the  statements 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  did  not  ask  you  that.  I  asked  you  if  you 
approved  the  plan. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  approved  the  statement  that  was  issued  at  the 
time  that  he  went  to  China,  which  was  all  that  the  public  knew  of  the 
purposes  of  the  mission.     I  approved  of  that. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Wlien  did  you  learn  that  he  was  sent  on  a  mis- 
sion to  try  and  take  the  Communists  into  the  government,  as  you  advo- 
cated in  your  memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  learned  that  General  Marsliall  was  going  to  China 
when  I  saw  it  in  the  press.  I  did  not  advocate  that  General  Marshall 
be  sent  to  China  to  take  the  Communists  into  the  government. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  did  not  advocate  that  General  Marshall 
be  sent,  but  you  advocated  that  that  be  our  policy  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  warned  the  President,  as  I  recall.  May  I  see  tho 
text  of  what  I  wrote? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  warned  the  President. 

Senator  Smith.  Do  you  have  any  other  copies  of  this?  I  imagine 
there  might  be  some  curious  people  that  would  like  to  see  them. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  would  say  there  would  be. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  We  have  only  the  copies  that  we  are  turning  in. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  The  letters  are  in  the  record,  including  the  memo- 
randum, I  think. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3117 

Senator  Smith.  There  was  some  question  that  they  be  admitted 
subject  to  the  propriety  that  the  chairman  woukl  pass  on  them,  having 
in  mind  there  might  be  some  correspondence  with  the  President  with 
which  I  might  not  be  familiar. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  thought  they  were  in  or  else  I  would  not  have 
examined  on  them. 

Senator  Smith.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  secrecy  about  them. 
But  I  did  have  some  hesitancy  myself  in  ruling  on  correspondence  that 
might  have  passed  between  Professor  Lattimore  and  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  I  prefer  to  leave  that  for  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  to  pass  on. 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  My  I  suggest,  it  is  5 :  15,  and  this  witness  has  been  on 
the  stand  all  day.  Perhaps  you  can  clear  that  up  tomorrow  morn- 
ing. 

Senator  Smith.  That  can  be  done.  But  there  is  one  thing,  and  I 
want  to  make  it  clear.  Mr.  Lattimore  stopped  reading  or  finished 
reading,  I  believe,  at  the  top  of  page  47.  Then  there  are  a  few  pages, 
47,  48,  49,  and  half  of  page  50,  and  I  asked  whether  or  not  anybody 
wishes  to  have  them  read. 

I  want  to  ask  whether  Dr.  Lattimore  wants  to  go  ahead  and  read  it 
now,  so  that  his  whole  story  will  be  before  us. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  do  not  want  to  object  to  him  reading  it. 

Senator  Smith.  I  am  asking  Dr.  Lattimore  whether  or  not  it  is  his 
wish  that  he  proceed  to  read  the  pages.  You  see,  they  are  dealing 
with  some  advice  as  to  policy,  not  as  to  the  past.  What  is  your  pref- 
erence ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  prefer  to  read  it,  if  I  might. 

As  a  basis  for  a  policy  that  might  work,  I  suggest  the  following 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  this  a  suggestion  to  the  committee  or  are 
these  your  views  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  my  statement  of  opinion  about  foreign 
policy. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  not  advice  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  not  advice  to  the  committee.  It  is  words 
to  be  considered  by  anyone  who  is  interested. 

As  the  basis'  for  a  policy  that  might  work,  I  suggest  the  following 
principles : 

1.  Since  the  North  Korean  Communist  aggression,  we  have  made 
clear  some  of  the  broad  outlines  of  our  policy  in  Asia  as  a  whole.  We 
have  shown  that  we  will  nowhere  tolerate  the  territorial  expansion 
of  communism  by  armed  aggression,  that  we  have  the  power  to  protect 
free  peoples  against  this  kind  of  aggression,  and  that  if  it  is  tried 
again,  elsewhere,  we  shall  resist  again.  We  must  hold  fast  to  this 
policy,  and  we  must  build  and  maintain  the  strength  to  carry  it  out. 
If  we  do  I  believe  we  can  count  on  countinuing  United  Nations 
backing. 

2.  On  the  basis  of  these  principles,  we  must  consider  the  problem  of 
China  as  a  part  of  the  whole  complex  of  the  problems  of  Asia.  We  can- 
not handle  it  successfully  in  isolation.  We  must  be  ready  and  quick 
to  resist  aggression  anywhere  in  Asia ;  and  at  the  same  time,  we  must 
be  even  ahead  of  the  Asians  in  insisting  that  freedom  for  them  means 
freedom  from  all  foreign  domination — our  own,  Britain's  and  France's 
as  well  as  that  of  the  Soviet  Union. 

88348— 52— pt.  9 15 


3118  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

3.  Our  stand  in  Korea  made  it  possible  to  begin  negotiating  from 
a  position  of  strength.  But  in  negotiating  from  positions  of  strength, 
it  is  necessary  to  show  also  that  while  we  are  determined  to  stop  Com- 
munist aggression,  we  are  eager  to  promote  alternatives  that  are  ac- 
ceptable to  the  maximum  number  of  people  in  Asia — and  Europe. 
We  must  show  that  we  are  not  blindly  committed  to  preventing 
changes  in  the  status  quo — that  we  accept  the  principles  of  national 
self-determination,  national  independence,  and  the  right  of  any  people 
to  determine  its  own  form  of  government  and  its  own  economic  sys- 
tem. 

4.  Those  aspects  of  our  policy  that  are  symbolized  by  the  words 
"point  4"  and  "Marshall  plan"  must  be  made  as  positive,  as  active, 
and  as  important  as  the  aspects  that  are  symbolized  by  the  words  "con- 
tainment'' and  "positions  of  strength."  We  must  show  our  willingness 
to  help  in  the  progress  of  economic  development,  as  well  as  political 
freedom,  in  all  the  countries  that  are  willing  to  accept  our  policies 
of  equality,  mutual  help,  and  mutual  defense. 

5'.  I  do  not  prophesy — I  do  not  think  any  man  could  honestly 
prophesy — what  the  eventual  answer  will  be.  But  I  do  believe  that 
China  is  different  from  Russia,  has  national  interests  different  from 
those  of  Russia,  and  will  follow  those  interests  rather  than  Russian 
doctrine  and  dogma. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  May  I  ask  one  question  at  that  point,  Mr.  Chair- 
man ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  presently  believe  that  the  Chinese  Commu- 
nists are  following  the  line  of  Moscow  ? 

Mr.  Lati^imore.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  see  any  signs  that  they  are  about  to  give 
it  up  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  haven't  had  the  time  to  follow  the  situation  very 
closeh^,  but  I  don't  see  any  signs. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  know  how  far  the  China  of  the  future  may 
differ  from  the  Russia  of  the  present,  or  in  what  way.  But  I  do  be- 
lieve that  there  is  no  Russian  combination  of  strategic,  political,  and 
economic  forces  that  can  permanently  mold  the  people  of  China 
against  their  will. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  not  understand  that  communism  will 
not  be  directly,  as  far  as  the  Chinese  are  concerned,  indicated  that  it  is 
coming  from  Moscow,  but  it  is  the  trained  man  from  Moscow,  and 
under  the  domination  of  Moscow,  that  will  make  it  appear  to  the 
Chinese  that  the  thing  is  Chinese  rather  than  Russian? 

Mr.  Latiimore.  On  the  contrarj^.  Senator.  My  understanding  is 
that  the  present  Chinese  Communist  propaganda  emphasizes  the  Rus- 
sian connection.  I  may  be  wrong  on  that.  It  may  have  switched 
again,  but  that  was  the  last  I  heard  of  it. 

Senator  Ferguson.  But  the  actual  Russian  does  not  come  down  ex- 
ceytt  as  an  overseer,  does  he  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  sorry,  I  am  not  informed  on  the  details  of 
that.  Senator. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  are  giving  an  opinion.  I  would  think 
before  you  would  give  an  opinion  that  you  would  know  something 
about  the  details. 

Mr.  Latttmore.  Senator,  I  am  trying  to  give  long-range  opinions. 

Senator  Ferguson.  This  is  long-range  advice  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3119 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  long  range. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Fifty  or  one  hundred  years  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Ferguson.  How  long?  What  do  you  call  a  long-range 
opinion  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  is  not  intended  to  be  a  report  on  the  details  of 
last  week's  situation  in  China. 

Senator  Ferguson.  How  long  a  range? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  know,  Senator.  I  should  think  it  would 
depend  partly  on  the  outcome  of  the  Korean  negotiations. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Do  you  think  that  this  advice  will  help  this 
committee  in  deciding  whether  or  not  there  was  penetration  in  the 
IPR  by  Communists,  and  whether  or  not  the  IPR  had  an  influence  on 
the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  might  help  the  committee  to  decide 
whether  they  think  that  I  am  a  Communist  or  not. 

Senator  Smith.  You  mean  what  you  say  as  to  the  future? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Wliat  I  say  as  to  the  future.  If  you  think  I  am 
talking  like  a  Communist,  that  is  your  judgment. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No,  I  think  we  ought  to  take  it  for  the  last 
reason. 

IMr.  Lattimore.  6.  It  is  of  critical  importance  that,  as  the  inde- 
pendent forces  and  separate  characteristics  of  China  begin  to  make 
themselves  felt,  both  China  and  the  rest  of  Asia  should  be  made  to 
realize  that  their  true  future  lies  in  independence — independence  of 
America,  as  of  Russia,  but  a  real  independence  supported  by  America, 
and  not  a  phony  independence  subordinate  to  Russia. 

7.  Independence  of  this  kind  is  possible.  It  is  possible  without  a 
world  war.  And  it  can  lead  eventually  to  a  stabilization  of  relations 
with  Russia  as  well  as  with  Asia.  It  is  the  declared  policy  of  our 
Government  that  our  purpose  in  attaining  positions  of  strength  is  to 
be  able  to  negotiate  such  a  stabilization.  I  support  that  concept  of 
policy. 

But  to  carry  out  such  a  policy  successfully,  we  must  convince  Asia, 
and  the  world,  and  above  all  ourselves,  that  we  are  not  abandoning 
democracy.  In  defending  ourselves  against  totalitarian  aggression 
abroad  and  infiltration  within,  we  must  not,  despairing  of  our  heri- 
tage of  freedom,  try  to  take  refuge  in  the  brutal  kind  of  police  state 
that  we  fought  against  when  we  destroyed  Hitler  and  defeated  Japan. 

The  responsibility,  gentlemen,  for  deciding  how  the  problems  of 
China  and  Asia  shall  be  handled  rests  squarely  on  this  country,  be- 
cause of  our  preponderating  influence  on  the  policies  of  such  countries 
as  Britain,  France,  and  Japan.  I  know  that  there  are  people  who 
believe  that  we  should  forthwith  go  to  war  with  the  Soviet  Union  and 
thereby  resolve  the  conflict  over  China  and  the  world.  Your  chair- 
man has  said  that  such  a  war  is  inevitable.  A  logical  case  of  sorts 
can  be  made  for  this  view,  based  on  the  record  of  the  intransigeance 
and  faithlessness  of  the  Soviet  Union  in  the  international  community. 
But  this  case  disregards  the  basic  values  of  the  lives  and  the  spiritual 
and  moral  well-being  of  ordinary  people.  These  values  are  at  stake, 
and  they  would  be  threatened  even  more  by  a  great  world  war  than 
thev  are  by  the  present  limited  conflict. 

War  may  come  upon  us.  We  may  have  no  choice  other  than  to  en- 
dure and  inflict  its  horrors.    But  the  moral  values  that  we  are  defend- 


3120  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC  RELATIONS 

ing  cannot  be  defended  if  we  take  upon  ourselves  the  inhuman  and 
brutal  responsibility  of  preventive  war.  The  demands  of  civilization 
and  humanity  are  that  we  make  every  effort,  unless  and  until  we  are 
forced  into  war,  to  protect  ourselves  and  the  values  of  civilization  by 
means  short  of  war. 

The  policy  which  I  have  described,  as  well  as  the  policy  to  which 
our  Government  and  the  United  Nations  are  committed  at  the  mo- 
ment, is  the  policy  of  containment  of  aggression  and  of  building  up 
the  conditions  and  forces  of  freedom.  It  demands,  over  and  above 
strength  and  firmness,  a  deep  understanding  of  the  hearts  and  aspira- 
tions of  men.  This  policy  is  the  hard  way,  the  difficult  course.  It 
requires  patience,  firmness  ,and  great  skill.  If  we  follow  it,  we  shall 
be  walking,  fully  armed,  through  minefields  and  among  pitfalls.  A 
violent  move  can  bring  disaster.  Misinformation  as  to  where  we  are 
treading,  and  the  sensitiveness  of  the  ground  on  which  we  tread,  can 
cause  a  fatal  miscalculation. 

Senator  Smith.  Just  a  minute.  Dr.  Lattimore.  It  has  come  to  the 
attention  of  the  Chair,  from  at  least  two  sources,  that  at  the  end  of 
this  session  a  demonstration  has  been  planned  in  this  room. 

The  Chair  wants  to  state  that  there  will  be  no  demonstration.  The 
Chair  has  asked  officers  to  come  into  this  room,  and  the  hall,  and  under 
no  circumstances  will  we  tolerate  any  demonstration  for  or  against 
Dr.  Lattimore.  I  hope  that  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  the  officers  to 
arrest  anyone,  as  I  have  instructed  them  to  do  if  there  is  any  demon- 
stration whatsoever. 

Go  ahead.  Dr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Gentlemen,  of  this  I  am  certain :  So  long  as  this 
program  of  maneuver  is  our  policy,  so  long  as  we  choose  the  difficult 
and  great  course  of  peace,  we  are  completely  dependent  for  success 
on  the  validity  of  our  information,  the  skill  with  which  we  analyze 
the  information,  and  the  ability  not  only  of  our  diplomats  but  of  our 
non-Government,  academic,  and  private  research  students  and  analy- 
sts. We  cannot  hope  to  play  this  dangerous  game,  and  certainly  not 
to  win  it,  unless  we  have  the  facts  as  to  what  is  going  on.  Our  observ- 
ers must  be  allowed  to  report  the  facts  as  they  see  them,  without  the 
fear  that  their  motives  will  be  misconstrued  if  they  tell  the  truth.  We 
must  know  the  facts  favorable  to  our  enemy  as  well  as  those  that  we 
like.  Of  equal  importance,  we  must  have  the  views  and  opinions  of 
all  who  have  any  special  competence.  Their  views  must  be  freely 
stated  and  stoutly  maintained,  so  that  those  who  have  the  ultimate 
decisions  to  make  may  have  the  fullest  choice  of  various  alternatives 
and  so  that  the  people  may  understand  the  issues  at  stake. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  entrust  our  destiny  in  any  way  to  those  whose 
first  allegiance  is  to  a  foreign  loyalty,  whether  that  be  the  Soviet 
Union,  Communist  China,  Chiang's  Formosa,  or  Franco's  Spain.  But 
we  must  be  ever  alert  to  encourage,  and  not  to  destroy,  freedom  for 
the  vigorous  expression  of  views,  even  of  wrong  views ;  and  freedom 
for  our  private  institutions,  as  well  as  our  official  personnel,  to  make 
their  contributions  to  the  formation  of  policy  and  the  determination 
of  our  destiny.  This  is  the  essence  of  democracy,  and  it  is  democracy's 
strength.    It  must  not  be  destroyed. 

Senator  Smith.  Dr.  Lattimore,  you  have  finished  your  prepared 
statement,  I  believe  ? 

Mr.  La'itimore.  Yes,  sir. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3121 

Senator  Smith.  And  you  have  been  allowed  to  finish  it  with  the 
opportunity  for  such  vigor  as  you  wish  to  express,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  with  occasional  interrogations,  Mr.  Chairman, 
as  the  chairman  stated  at  the  beginning. 

Senator  Smith.  I  must  say,  at  the  end  of  this  reading  by  you  of  a 
prepared  statement,  you  have  been  allowed  to  finish  this  reading  un- 
molested and  with  the  emphasis  you  have  just  demonstrated. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Smith.  I  just  want  to  make  that  clear  and  have  it  in  the 
record. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  wanted  to  ask  if  there  is  anything  that  he 
wanted  to  say  now  about  this  document,  or  to  add  to  it  or  subtract  from 
it? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  at  the  moment.  Senator,  thank  you. 

Senator  Smith.  Then  we  will  recess  until  tomorrow  morning  at  10 
o'clock,  when  the  examination  of  Dr.  Lattimore  will  continue. 

("Whereupon,  at  5 :  30  p.  m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  10  a.  m.,  Friday,  February  29, 1952.) 


INSTITUTE  OF  PACIFIC  RELATIONS 


FBIDAY,   FEBRUARY  29,   1952 

United  States  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the  Administration 
OF  THE  Internal  Security  Act  and  Other  Internal 
Security  Laws,  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington^  D.  G. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10 :  10  a.  m.,  pursuant  to  recess,  in  room 
424  of  the  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Pat  McCarran  (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present :  Senators  McCarran,  Eastland,  O'Conor,  Smith,  Ferguson, 
and  Watkins. 

Senators  Young,  McCarthy,  and  Mundt. 

Also  present :  J.  G.  Sourwine,  committee  counsel ;  and  Eobert  Mor- 
ris, subcommittee  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

We  regret  the  congested  condition  of  the  room,  but  it  is  impossible 
to  do  otherwise.    We  hope  that  we  may  have  quiet. 

You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Morris. 

TESTIMONY  OF  OWEN  LATTIMORE,  ACCOMPANIED  BY  HIS  COUNSEL, 

ABE  FORTAS 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore 


Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  asked  yesterday  at  the  close 
of  my  statement  if  I  had  anything  to  add.  I  do  have  some  supple- 
mentary material  that  I  should  like  to  be  allowed  time  to  assemble 
over  the  week  end  and  present  later. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  have  you  ever  worked  in  concert  with 
a  person  whom  you  knew  to  be  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't  believe  I  have. 

Mr.  Morris.  Have  you  ever  knowingly  assisted  the  Communist 
Party  of  any  country,  or  any  person  or  persons  known  to  you  to  be 
a  Communist  or  pro-Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations;  of  course,  the 
Russian  members  of  the  Russian  Council  could  be  assumed  to  be  Com- 
munist. 

Mr.  Morris.  But  apart  from  them  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Apart  from  them,  no;  I  don't  believe  so. 

Mr.  Morris.  Have  you  ever  taken  instructions  or  abided  by  recom- 
mendations made  by  members  of  the  Communist  Party  of  the  Soviet 
Union  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  to  my  knowledge ;  no. 

3123 


3124  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Morris.  The  Communist  Party  or  any  other  country  ? 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  Have  you  ever  received  any  orders  or  instructions  or 
suggestions,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  Communist  or  pro-Com- 
munist source? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  That  I  considered  to  be  Communist  or  pro-Com- 
munist at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  answer  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  I  will  read  it  again.    [Reading :] 

Have  you  ever  received  any  orders  or  instructions  or  suggestions,  directly  or 
indirectly,  from  any  Communist  or  pro-Communist  source? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Orders  and  instructions,  no.  Of  course,  when  I 
went  up  to  Yenan,  the  Chinese  Communist  headquarters,  in  1937, 
and  later  in  Chungking  under  the  instructions  of  Generalissimo 
Chiang  Kai-shek,  I  did  talk  with  Communists. 

Mr.  Morris.  But  otherwise  your  answer  is  "No"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Otherwise  my  answer  is  "No." 

The  Chairman.  Read  that  question  again,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  Have  you  ever  received  any  orders  or  instructions  or 
suggestions,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  Communist  or  pro-Com- 
munist source? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  fully  understand  the  question,  Mr.  Latti- 
more? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  considered  to  be  Communist  or  pro- 
Communist  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Except  for  Yenan  and  Chungking. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Except  for  Yenan  and  Chungking. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  don't  consider  that  he  has 
answered  the  question.  When  he  puts  the  answer  "considered"  I 
do  not  think  he  has  answered  the  question  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question  again,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris  (reading)  : 

Have  you  ever  received  any  orders,  instructions  or  suggestion,  directly  or  in- 
directly, from  any  Communist  or  pro-Communist  source? 

(Mr,  Lattimore  consulting  counsel.) 

Senator  Ferguson.  The  question  is  did  he  know  them  to  be  Com- 
munists or  have  information. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  considered  to  be  Communist  at  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  think  that  that  is  the  answer,  and  I  do  not 
think  it  calls  for  time,  Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  you  should  consider  the 
question,  if  you  please.    I  asked  you  if  you  understood  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  understood  it,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  I  will  have  it  read  again  for  you  if  you 
think  you  do  not  understand  it  or  if  you  have  any  doubt  about  the 
understanding  of  it,  because  it  is  a  vital  Question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  I  understood  it,  and  I  think  my  answer  was 
clear,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  think  you  have  made  an  answer  to  the 
question,  Mr.  Lattimore.  In  order  that  you  may  clarify  your  situa- 
tion, I  ask  the  counsel  to  read  the  question  again. 

Mr.  Morris  (reading)  : 

Have  you  ever  received  any  orders  or  instructions  or  suggestions,  directly  or 
Indirectly,  from  any  Communist  or  pro-Communist  source? 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3125 

Mr,  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  considered  to  be  Communist. 

Mr.  SouRAViNE.  Except  in  the  case  of  Chmigking  and  Yenan. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  and  there  it  is  only  a  question  of  having  con- 
versations with  them,  and  I  don't  remember  anything  there  that  could 
be  considered  a  suggestion,  much  less  an  instruction. 

The  Chairman.  Or  an  order. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Or  an  order. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well,  proceed. 

Mr.  Morris.  Have  you  ever  consciously  conformed  your  actions  or 
your  expressions  of  opinion  with  any  Communist  policy  or  Commu- 
nist directive  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  When  you  were  editor  of  the  publication  Pacific 
Affairs  did  you  ever  publish  an  article  by  a  person  whom  you  knew  to 
be  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Apart  from  Russian  contributions,  no. 

Mr.  Morris.  While  you  were  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs  did  you  pub- 
lish articles  by  persons  whom  you  subsequently  learned  were  members 
of  the  Communist  Party  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  learned  or  believed  to  be  now. 

Mr.  Morris.  Who  were  they,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Well,  Mr.  Field,  and  I  suppose  I  should  include 
any  of  those  who  have  refused  to  testify  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  James  S.  Allen  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir;  I  didn't.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
I  knew  nothing  about  him  prior  to  his  article  coming  in. 

Mr.  Morris.  Prior  to 

Mr.  Lattimore.  His  article  being  submitted. 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  did  you  know  him  to  be  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is,  during  the  time  you  were  editor  of  Pacific 
Affairs 

Mr.  Lattimore.  During  the  time. 

Mr.  Morris  (continued).  Right  up  to  the  middle  of  1941,  did  you 
ever  know  that  James  S.  Allen  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  that  Joseph  Barnes  was  a  Commu- 
nist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  Again  during  the  term  of  your  editorship  of  Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Then  or  ever. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  term  is  applied  to  all  of  these  questions.  The^ 
term  "while  you  were  an  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs"  is  applied  to  all  of 
the  questions  I  am  now  asking. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  see ;  yes. 

Senator  Watkins.  Mr.  Morris,  I  think  probably  he  ought  to  be 
asked  if  he  has  ever  been  told  by  anyone  that  they  were  Communists 
during  that  time,  in  addition  to  the  question  you  have  asked. 

Mr.  Morris.  Were  you  ever  told  that  James  S.  Allen  was  a  Com- 
munist ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Were  you  ever  told  that  Joseph  Barnes  was  a  Com- 
munist ? 


3126  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Kathleen 
Barnes  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Mr.  T.  A. 
Bisson  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Chi- 
Chao-ting  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Chen 
Han-seng  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Frederick 
V.  Field  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Michael 
Greenberg  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Y.  Y.  Hsu  was 
a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Olga  Lang 
was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Harriet 
Moore  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Lawrence 
K.  Rosinger  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Guenther 
Stein  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Edgar 
Snow  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Were  you  ever  told  that  he  was  pro-Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  he  was  pro-Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  didn't  consider  him  pro-Communist. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  is,  "Did  you  know  ?"  I  think  you  can 
answer  that  "Yes"  or  "No,"  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  he  was  not  pro-Com- 
munist. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  Andrew  J.  Steiger  or  were  you 
ever  told  that  Andrew  J.  Steiger  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Latteviohe.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Anna 
Louise  Strong  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Mary  Van 
Kleeck  was  a  Communist? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3127 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  have  you  ever  been  told  that 
Nym  Wales  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore,  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  or  were  you  ever  told  that  Ella 
Winter  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  If  I  might  interrupt,  by  the  witness'  answer  to  each 
of  those  questions  "No ;  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was,"  do  you  intend  the 
"I  don't  believe  I  ever  was"  to  refer  to  the  portion  of  the  question 
about  having  been  told  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes ;  I  include  that. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Does  the  "No"  go  both  to  the  question  of  knowing 
and  of  having  been  told  whether  the  person  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  In  each  instance? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Very  good. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So,  even  though  there  are  two  questions,  you 
are  answering  both  of  them  "No"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  answering  both  of  them,  to  both  parts  of  the 
question,  that  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  qualifying  that  answer  ? 

The  Chairman.  Wait  a  minute,  now.    Put  the  question  again. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Did  you  answer  both  parts  of  the  questions,  all 
of  the  questions,  "No"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  answered  both  parts  of  all  the  questions  "No;  I 
don't  believe  I  ever  was." 

Senator  Ferguson.  All  right.    Are  you  qualifying  the  "No"  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  qualifying  that  I  don't  believe  I  ever  was. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  statement  "I  don't  believe  I  ever  was"  is  not 
a  completely  responsive  answer  to  the  question,  did  you  know  So-an- 
So  was  a  Communist.     That  is  all  I  was  getting  at. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  it  certainly  is  intended  to  be  responsive, 
Mr.  Sourwine. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  to  answer  "No" ;  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mean  to  answer  "No" ;  that  I  don't  believe  I  ever 
was.  After  all,  my  memory  is  not  perfect.  I  am  being  asked  about 
people  with  some  of  whom  I  had  extremely  slight  contact  many  years 
ago. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  if  I  ask  you  "Did  you  ever  know 
that  Y.  Y.  Hsu  was  a  Communist?"  and  you  say,  "No",  I  don't  believe 
I  ever  was,"  it  is  not  completely  responsive.    Do  you  see  what  I  mean? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  was  asked  if  I  know  or  was  I  ever  told 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  he  was  a  Communist,  and  I  don't  believe  I 
ever  was. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Ever  was  told. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Ever  was  told. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Specifically  on  the  question  of  did  you  know. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  And  I  don't  believe  I  ever  knew. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  All  right.  That  is  your  answer  to  each  of  these 
series  of  questions? 


3128  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  ' 

Mr.  L'attimore.  That  is  my  answer. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  That  is  all  I  wanted  to  know. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Are  you  qualifying  the  word  "no?" 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  saying  that  I  don't  believe  I  ever  knew  or 
was  told. 

Senator  Ferguson.  I  do  not  think  that  is  responsive  to  the  ques- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  responsive  because  he  can  say  "No,"  and 
that  would  answer  the  question.  It  is  a  complete  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator,  it  would  be  a  complete  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion if  I  had  a  total  memory,  but  I  just  don't. 

Mr.  Morris.  Were  you  ever  told  that  Victor  A.  Yakontoff  was 
frankly  pro-Soviet? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  so. 

Mr.  Morris.  At  any  time  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  can  recall. 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  know  a  man  who  used  the  pen  name  of 
Asiaticus  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  never  knew  him.  I  received  articles  from  him 
which  I  published. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  not  all  of  the  above  21  persons  contribute  leading 
articles  to  Pacific  Affairs  while  you  were  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs? 
Allen,  Barnes,  Kathleen  Barnes,  Bisson,  Chi,  Chen  Han-seng,  Field, 
Greenberg,  Hsu,  Lang,  Moore,  Kosinger,  Stein,  Snow,  Steiger,  Anna 
Louise  Strong,  Mary  Van  Kleeck,  Nym  Wales,  Ella  Winter,  Victor 
Yakontoff,  and  Asiaticus? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  not  be  able  to  reply  offliand  that  they  all 
contributed  at  all  or  that  they  contributed  leading  articles. 

The  Chairman.  You  weren't  asked  about  leading  articles.  You 
were  asked  did  they  contribute  articles. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  I  asked  about  leading  articles. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

(Mr.  Lattimore  conferring  with  counsel.) 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  contribute  leading  articles  while  you 
were  editor  of  the  magazine  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  want  to  refresh  your  recollection  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a  minute. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  all  right  if  he  wants  to  refresh  his  recollection. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  have  a  list  here  of  contributors  to  Pacific  Affairs, 
Mr.  Chairman.    I  would  like  to  consult  it. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  that  is  all  right. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Did  you  say  that  Michael  Greenberg  was  on  that 
list? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes ;  Michael  Greenberg. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  list  here,  which  may  not  be  correct,  shows  a 
contribution  from  him  in  September  1941,  which  would  be  after  the 
period  of  my  editorship. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  see.     You  didn't  prepare  for  that  edition. 

Mr.  Laitimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  I  did. 

^  Mr.  SouRwiNE.  How  much  is  the  lag,  Mr.  Lattimore,  in  your  maga- 
zine? That  is,  what  is  your  schedule?  What  is  the  time  period 
between  preparation  and  going  to  press  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3129 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  was  a  quarterly  magazine,  and  therefore  the 
timing  of  a  quarterly  magazine  is  rather  leisurely.  Some  of  the 
articles  came  from  abroad.  So  some  articles  would  be,  so  to  speak, 
in  the  works  for  more  than  the  period  between  two  issues.  The  clos- 
ing date  before  going  to  press  when  I  was  editing  for  China  was  rather 
long,  naturally,  because  I  had  to  send  the  final  material  from  China. 
Then,  when  I  was  editing  it  from  Baltimore  it  was  naturally  very  much 
shorter,  but  I  don't  remember  just  what  the  time  limit  was. 

Mr.  bouRwiNE.  Do  you  think  it  was  a  month,  6  weeks,  2  months? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  may  have  been  of  the  order  of  6  weeks  or  so. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Did  you  say  that  Y.  Y.  Hsu  was  on  your  list,  Mr. 
Morris  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  right,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  have  him  on  my  list  at  all.  That  may  be  a 
mistake  on  my  part. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  have  the  answer,  did  he  or  did  he 
not?  After  you  consult  your  list,  I  would  like  to  have  you  answer 
the  question  completely. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  that  case  my  list  may  not  be  absolutely  correct. 

Mr.  Morris,  Would  your  list  show  a  translation  done  by  him,  Mr. 
Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Possibly  there  may  have  been  a  translation  by  him 
that  wouldn't  show  in  my  list. 

Mr.  Morris.  You  would  have  the  original  listed  there,  not  the  trans- 
lation ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  that  is  enough  on  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I  do  not  think  you  have  an  answer  to  the  question. 
Do  you  have  your  question  there  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  With  the  exception  of  those  two,  Mr.  Lattimore 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  going  on  through  the  list 

The  Chairman.  Consult  your  list  and  then  answer  the  question. 
[Mr.  Lattimore  examining  document.] 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  those  are  the  only  exceptions  I  would  make, 
Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  Otherwise  your  answer  is  "Yes,"  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattpmore.  That  they  contributed  to  Pacific  Affairs  during 
the  period  when  I  was  editor  of  it. 

Mr.  Morris.  There  was  a  further  qualification,  that  it  was  leading 
articles,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Leading  articles  would  be  a  question  of  subjective 
judgment,  and  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  would  qualify  all  those  con- 
tributions as  leading  articles. 

Mr.  Morris.  How  about  the  distinction  of  an  article  rather  than 
a  review  in  Pacific  Affairs  ? 

^  The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  that,  how  about  a  distinc- 
tion ?     I  don't  think  your  question  is  clear. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Chairman,  Pacific  Affairs  is  made  up  of  a  series 
of  articles  and  a  series  of  book  reviews.  There  is  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  two.  In  fact,  you  have  them  listed  separate,  do  you  not, 
Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

The  Chairman.  Make  your  question  complete. 


3130  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Morris.  Would  you  testify  that  they  contributed  articles  as 
opposed  to  reviews  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  see.  I  think  there  is  a  further  distinction  to  be 
made,  that  Pacific  Aflairs 

The  Chairman.  First  of  all,  answer  that  question  and  then  see  if 
there  is  a  further  distinction  to  be  made. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  that  they  all  contributed  articles;  yes,  not 
reviews. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  wish  to  make  a  further  distribution,  you 
may  do  so. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  I  was  simply  going  to  state  that  Pacific 
Affairs  included  at  the  beginning  of  the  magazine,  articles.  Then 
there  was  a  section  called  "comment  and  opinion"  or  "comment  and 
criticism,"  or  something  of  that  sort,  which  would  be  in  a  quarterly 
magazine  more  or  less  the  equivalant  of  a  letters  to  the  editor  section, 
and  then  came  the  book  reviews. 

Mr.  Morris.  If  you  use  the  term  "leading  articles,"  what  would  you 
describe  as  a  leading  article,  in  Pacific  Affairs  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  put  it  in  the  article  section,  but  would  not 
include  the  comment  and  criticism  section. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  have  you  testified  in  executive  session 
before  this  committee  that  you  did  not  know  Asiaticus  to  be  a  Com- 
munist and  in  your  opinion  he  was  a  Socialist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  did ;  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Is  the  chairman  satisfied  with  that  answer?  We  will 
have  Mr.  Lattimore's  answer  read  into  the  record.  He  said  he  believed 
he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  have  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  speaking  from  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  understand  you  can't  be  expected  to  remember  it 
word  for  word. 

Senator  Ferguson.  No.  Show  it  to  him  and  ask  him  if  that  is 
true. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  have  it  here. 

The  Chairman.  Show  him  the  record  and  he  may  answer. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  will  find  it  on  that  page,  Mr.  Lattimore  [Mr. 
Lattimore  examining  transcript]. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  my  statement  is  that  testimony  was,  "I  don't 
know  he  was  a  Communist.  I  would  have  said,  speaking  as  of  the 
late  1930's,  that  I  would  have  thought  he  was  possibly  a  Socialist, 
but  not  a  Communist," 

Mr.  ]\IoRRiss.  All  right.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  not  testify  in 
executive  session  before  this  committee  that  you  did  not  know  that 
Asiaticus  was  a  Marxist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  see  the  transcript  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes.    That  is  on  page  87. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  testified,  "I  didn't  know  whether  he  was  a 
Marxist  or  not.    I  thought  he  was  a  left-winger." 

May  I  add  there  that  this  was  many  years  ago,  and  my  memory 
may  not  have  been  perfectly  accurate.  Also  I  would  like  to  add  that 
I  certainly  did  not  consider  myself  then  and  don't  consider  myself 
even  now  an  authority  on  who  is  a  Marxist  and  who  isn't. 

JNlr.  Morris.  To  your  qnowled£:e  was  Asiaticus 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3131 

The  Chairman.  The  reference  to  many  years  ago  doesn't  refer 
to  the  record  you  have  in  your  hands,  does  it  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  was  not  in  the  record.  I  am  adding  that  now, 
sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  know,  but  you  said  your  memory  many  years 
ago.  You  did  not  refer  to  the  record  that  you  made  that  was  handed 
to  you  today  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  didn't  refer  to  it  at  the  time.  I  said  I  wanted 
to  add  that. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  The  Chairman  means  this  record  was  not  made 
many  years  ago. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  was  just  adding  a  clarification. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  This  record  was  on  July  13, 1951. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Chairman,  might  the  record  be  clear  as  to 
what  was  in  the  record  of  the  executive  session  and  what  he  added? 
I  am  not  clear  what  he  added. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  the  record  should  be  clear  on  that. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  may  read  the  record. 

Senator  Ferguson.  So  it  will  be  clear. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Asiaticus  was  under  discussion.    Mr.  Morris  said: 

And  yet,  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  were  able  to  recommend  him  as  a  qualified  per- 
former for  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations. 

Mr.  Lattimore  said : 

I  didn't  recommend  him.  He  wrote  in  some  material  for  me  which  I  thought 
was  a  good  article  on  the  subject  and  I  published  it.  One  of  his  articles  was  on 
railway  loans  in  China  at  the  turn  of  the  century,  the  late  1890's  and  the  early 
1900's.  It  concerned  some  of  the  British  Railway  loans  of  that  period.  I  sent 
the  article,  as  I  always  did  in  such  cases,  to  the  Royal  Institute  of  International 
Affairs  in  London,  and  they  disagreed  with  some  of  his  interpretations  but  not 
with  his  statements  of  facts. 

INIr.  Morris.  You  knew  at  the  time  he  was  at  least  a  Marxist,  didn't  you? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  didn't  know  whether  he  was  a  Marxist  or  not.  I  thought  he 
was  a  left-winger. 

Mr.  Morris.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  term,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  a  vague  term  which  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  make 
precise. 

In  connection  with  the  other  matter 

The  Chairman.  Let's  not  get  that  confused  with  the  other  matter. 
Mr  .Sourwine.  I  mean  the  other  mention  of  Asiaticus. 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  know  that  Asiaticus  had  any  part  in  the  inquiry  conducted 
by  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations,  the  long  inquiry  that  you  people  conducted 
in  the  late  thirties? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  answer  that.  I  was  not  in  charge  of  the  inquiry  and 
I  don't  know  who  did  participate  and  who  didn't. 

Mr.  Morris.  Can  you  recall  that  you  commended  Mr.  Carter  on  the  selection 
of  Asiaticus  on  that  inquiry? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  recall  it. 

Mr.  Morris.  You  do  not  recall  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  wouldn't  have  been  at  all  surprised,  I  thought  he  was  a 
good  economist  who  knew  economic  conditions  in  China  pretty  well. 

Mr.  Morris.  And  it  is  your  testimony  that  you  did  not  know  he  was  a  Com- 
munist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  didn't  know  he  was  a  Communist.  I  would  have  said,  speak- 
ing as  of  the  late  1930's,  that  I  would  have  thought  he  was  possibly  a  Socialist, 
but  not  a  Communist. 


3132  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  testify  in  executive  session  that 
you  did  not  know  that  Asiaticus  had  written  for  Imprecorr,  the  offi- 
cial publication  of  the  Communist  International  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  Page  86  and  page  88. 

The  Chairman.  Show  that  to  him.  [Mr.  Lattimore  examining 
docmnent.] 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  question  here  from  Mr.  Morris  was,  "Did  you 
know  that  he  had  written  for  Imprecorr."  And,  "Mr.  Lattimore: 
No ;  I  didn't." 

May  I  add  at  this  time  that  I  doubt  very  much  whether  I  knew  in 
the  1930's  that  there  was  such  a  thing  as  Imprecorr. 

Mr.  Morris.  To  your  knowledge,  Mr.  Lattimore,  was  Asiaticus 
considered  a  Marxist  in  IPK.  circles  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  answer  that,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  have  knowledge  that  he  was  considered  a 
Marxist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  I  do.  I  don't  know  and  I  don't 
think  I  ever  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  see.  Did  you  know  that  Asiaticus  had  written  a 
book  published  in  Berlin  under  Communist  auspices  entitled  "From 
Shanghai  to  Canton"? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Here  I  am  speaking  from  recollection  which  is  not 
at  all  precise,  but  I  believe  I  may  have  been  told  that  by  Wittfogel. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  he  had  written  the  book  From 
Shanghai  to  Canton  from  your  own  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  from  my  own  knowledge,  no. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  read  the  book? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  What  names  did  you  know  Asiaticus  by?  Did  you 
know  him  by  the  name  of  Shippe  ? 

Mr.  Lattlmore.  Shippe,  or  Shipper;  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Hans  Mueller? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Hans  Mueller  ?     I  don't  think  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  Any  other  name? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  Not  that  I  recall. 

Mr.  Morris.  When  you  corresponded  with  him  you  corresponded 
with  him  in  the  name  of  Shippe ;  is  that  your  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  my  recollection,  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  how  many  articles  did  Asiaticus  write 
for  you  while  you  were  editor  of  Pacific  Aif airs  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  list  here  shows  four. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  so  we  will  be  sure  we  are  talking  about 
the  same  man,  I  show  j'ou  a  volume  of  Pacific  Affairs.  Which  one 
is  that? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  volume  9  for  June  1936. 

Mr.  Morris.  Does  that  contain  an  article  by  Asiaticus  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  contains  an  article  by  Asiaticus. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  see  that,  Mr.  Lattimore?  Mr.  Lattimore, 
are  any  of  these  people  who  wrote  for  this  particular  issue  of  Pacific 
Affairs,  Communists  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  Not  of  my  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Harriet  Moore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  of  my  personal  Imowledge. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3133 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Asiaticus? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  of  my  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Guenther  Stein  ? 

Mr.  Latt'more.  Not  of  my  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Lin  Yu? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  of  my  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Wang  Yu-Ch'uan  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Wait  a  minute.     Lin  Yu  I  don't  even  remember. 

Mr.  SouRAviNE.  He  wrote  "Twin  Loyalties  in  Siam." 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  so. 

Mr.  SouR^viNE.  Wang  Yu-Chuan? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  H.  J.  Timperley? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  SouR^vINE.  W.  Wynne  Williams  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  even  recall  him. 

Mr.  SouR'wiNE.  C.  J.  Robertson? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  even  recall  him. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  A.  Arthur  Schiller? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  recall  him. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Would  you  say,  then,  that  there  are  no  Communist 
writers  represented  in  that  issue  of  the  magazine;  that  is,  the  June 
1936  issue  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  that  issue  certainly  to  the  extent  of  my  knowl- 
edge at  the  time  as  editor,  no. 

Senator  Watkins.  May  I  inquire  just  what  do  you  mean  by  your 
personal  knowledge  ?  Are  you  seeking  to  make  a  distinction  between 
that  and  their  reputation  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No.  What  name  was  read  here  ?  Harriet  Moore  ? 
1  have  no  personal  knowledge  that  she  is  a  Communist. 

Senator  Watkins.  Was  she  reputed  at  that  time  to  be  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  so.  I  don't  remember  hearing 
that. 

Senator  Watkins.  Was  she  generally  considered  so  in  your  IPR 
circle  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  1936  ? 

Senator  Watkins.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Were  any  of  those  persons  reputed  to  be  Commun- 
ists as  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  On  this  list? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Manclel,  will  you  read  into  the  record  at  this  time 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Wittf  ogel  that  appears  at  309  in  the  open  session  ? 

Mr.  Mandel.  I  read  from  the  testimony  of  August  Wittf  ogel,  dated 
August  7,  1951,  on  page  309,  part  I  of  the  hearings,  reading  as  fol- 
lows  

Senator  Ferguson.  Just  one  moment. 

Senator  Watkins.  Wliat  hearings,  Mr.  Mandel? 

Mr.  Mandel.  Hearings  before  this  committee. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Senator? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Yes. 

88348— 52— pt.  9 16 


3134  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Mandel.  Quoting: 

Dr.  WiTTFOGEL.  The  Chi  story  I  have  told.  No  doubt  I  have  said  I  discussed 
it  with  Lattiuiore.  The  Asiaticus  story  I  told  you  and  I  talked  to  Lattimore 
after  he  came  back  here.  We  talked  about  Asiaticus,  too,  several  times.  I  told 
him  the  story  the  way  I  knew  it ;  I  told  Lattimore  that. 

Mr.  MoRKis.  Will  you  read  what  the  reference  is  to,  Mr.  Mandel,  on 
page  308  ? 

Mr.  Mandel.  On  page  308  Dr.  Wittfogel  says  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Morris'  question : 

Will  you  relate  to  us  the  circumstance  of  your  meeting  a  man  known  as 
Asiaticus  in  Shanghai  in  1937? 

Dr.  Wittfogel.  The  name  Asiaticus  was  known  to  me  in  Germany  as  the 
name  of  a  German  Communist  who  had  held  a  leading  position  in  the  German 
party,  who  was  known  as  Heinz  Moeller,  and  who  I  think  in  the  middle  of  the 
twenties  left  Germany.  His  faction  was  defeated,  and  one  of  the  ways  of  leaders 
of  such  groups  would  be  to  make  themselves  useful  in  Moscow  and  be  reassigned, 
as  Gerhardt  Eisler  was  later  on. 

This  man  went  to  China  and  participated  in  the  early  developments  of  the 
expansion  of  the  Kuomintang  regime,  when  there  was  cooperation  with  the 
Communist  Party  at  that  time,  from  Canton  into  Yangtze  Valley  up  to  1927. 
And  Moeller,  who,  like  I  think  a  number  of  other  Communists  held  a  position 
in  the  Kuomintang  government,  and  Mr.  Stalin  would  say  "apparatus." 

He  worked  there  in  some  kind  of  press  or  publicity 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  That  is  "as."    I  think  you  misread  a  word. 
Mr.  Mandel  (reading). 

as  Mr.  Stalin  would  say  "apparatus." 

He  worked  in  some  kind  of  press  or  publicity  center  and  put  his  articles  or 
some  others  together  in  a  book  which  was  published  I  think  in  1928  in  Germany 
under  the  title,  translated,  "From  Canton  to  Shanghai." 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  a  Communist  publishing  house  publish  that  Dr.  Wittfogel? 

Dr.  WiTTroGEL.  Yes,  that  is  right,  in  Germany,  and  I  was  interested.  He  was 
a  protege  of  Gerhardt  Eisler's,  and  I  think  this  was  not  a  very  good  book. 

Mr.  Morris.  Keep  going. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes.    [Beading :] 

It  was  poorly  written,  and  I  think  it  was  dull  stuff.  So  I  inquired  about  the 
circumstances  and  I  heard  more  about  this  Heinz  Moeller.  It  was  published 
at  that  time.  It  was  just  before  the  fall  of  Eisler ;  and  Eisler  wanted  it,  and 
he  was  then  powerful.    The  book  was  printed. 

Mr.  MoBRis.  You  say  you  met  Asiaticus  in  Shanghai  in  1937? 

Dr.  Wittfogel.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  tell  us  the  circumstances? 

Dr.  Wittfogel.  I  met  him  in  the  house  of,  I  think,  some  doctor,  some  people 
from  Europe  who  I  don't  think  were  political.  I  don't  remember  any  details 
about  them.  They  said  there  was  a  man  who  would  like  to  see  me,  and  he 
introduced  himself  as  Asiaticus-Moeller.  He  told  me  he  had  been  expelled — 
maybe  I  knew  it,  I  don't  remember  exactly  how  this  came  about — from  the  party 
but  that  he  had  made  his  peace  with  the  great  father  in  the  Kremlin  and  that 
he  had  been  back  in  Moscow  and  that  he  was  in  good  standing  again,  and  at  that 
time  he  was  writing  for  Izvestia,  which  would  indicate  indeed  he  was  in  good 
standing. 

Mr.  Moiu?is.  You  say  you  did  meet  him  in  Shanghai  in  1937? 

Dr.  Witttfoof.l.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  MoKRLS.  Dr.  Wittfogel,  1  would  like  to  present  to  you  a  copy  of  a  letter 
which  we  introduced  into  our  official  files  here  as  exhibit  No.  4  on  the  first  day 
of  tlie  hearings. 

Mr.  IMoRRis.  That  is  enough,  Mr.  Mandel. 

Mr.  Mandel ,  will  you  get  the  next  document  ?  Will  you  identify  this 
document,  please? 

Mr.  Mandel.  This  is  a  photostat  of  a  document  from  the  files  of 
the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations  headed  "Meeting  on  Pacific  affaire. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3135 

April  8 ;  Motiliev,  Voitinsky,  ECC,  OL,  Harondar,  HM."  And  there 
is  a  penciled  notation  which  is  photostated,  marked  "1936." 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  I  offer  you  this  document,  and  ask  you 
if  you  ever  have  seen  this  before. 

The  Chairman.  I  take  it  that  you  want  him  to  see  the  original? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  I  have  ever  seen  it  before. 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  remember  a  meeting  in  April  8,  1936,  in  Mos- 
cow in  which  those  people  enumerated  there  were  present? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  recall  one  or  more  meetings  with  members  of  the 
Soviet  group  of  IPR.  I  couldn't  tell  you  how  many  and  I  couldn't 
tell  you  the  exact  dates.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  accept  that  this 
is  the  record  of  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  I  wonder  if  you  would  read  on  page  3 
the  full  paragraph  beginning  with  "O.  L."  The  reference  "O.  L."  is  to 
you,  is  it  not,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore;  Presumably,  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  read  aloud  that  paragraph,  please,  Mr.  Latti- 
more?   Will  you  read  this  aloud,  please,  this  paragraph? 

Mr.  FoRTAs.  Did  you  say  the  third  paragraph  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  No,  the  only  paragraph  beginning  with  "O.  L."  The 
larger  paragraph. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.    [Reading :] 

O.  L.  asked  if  Motiliev  had  received  both  his  long  letters  on  the  question  of 
P.  A.  and  Motiliev  said  that  he  had  only  received  the  second.  O.  L.  said  that 
his  main  difficulties  had  been  two:  (1)  When  he  took  over  the  editorship  of 
P.  A  — 

That  is  Pacific  Affairs — 

it  was  after  the  last  conference,  and  he  and  E.  O.  C. — 

That  is  Mr.  Carter. 

did  not  want  to  determine  a  definite  policy  alone,  since  that  vpould  be  a  one-sided, 
American  decision.  Therefore,  no  very  clear  policy  was  determined  and  this 
is  to  be  done  at  Yosemite,  he  hopes.  (2)  He  has  had  trouble  getting  material 
from  the  different  councils.    The  lack  of  articles  on 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  raise  your  voice  a  little.  I  cannot  hear 
you. 

Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

Japan  is  not  the  lack  of  asking.  The  Japanese  council  has  promised  articles 
on  rice,  silk,  and  the  cooperative  movement.  In  the  first  five  issues,  it  was 
never  known  whether  there  would  be  enough  material  until  a  week  before  the 
magazine  went  to  press.  At  the  beginning  P.  A.  had  no  prestige  and  it  was 
difficult  to  get  people  to  write  for  it.  Some  of  the  articles  in  the  first  issues  are 
padding,  due  to  lack  of  material.  Likewise,  the  Soviet  council  did  not  send 
in  its  articles.  The  one  article  received  from  them  was  made  the  leading 
article.  It  has  only  been  in  the  last  2  or  3  months  that  O.  L.  has  felt  that  he 
could  freely  turn  down  articles.  In  the  case  of  the  Isaacs  article,  there  was 
not  enough  material  for  that  issue.  The  Chinese  council  did  not  object  to  the 
article  and  would  give  no  answer  to  it  and  no  other  article  on  the  same  sub- 
ject. It  is  impossible  to  get  in  touch  with  the  Chinese  Communists  to  get  an 
answer  from  them.  O.  L.  did  not  know  about  the  writer  in  China  Today  or 
he  would  have  tried  to  get  the  answer  published  in  P.  A.  rather  than  in  China 
Today.  However,  when  it  was  published  in  China  Today,  the  question  came 
up  whether  the  precedent  should  be  set  of  republishing  materials  from  othei 
magazines.  It  had  never  been  done,  and  P.  A.  was  supposed  to  publish  new 
material.  Therefore  O.  L.  decided  to  print  an  extract  of  the  answer  and  give 
it  a  prominent  place.  O.  L.  had  previously  tried  to  get  other  articles  on  the 
Chinese  Revolution,  but  this  was  the  only  one  he  could  get.  It  was  made  a 
leading  article  in  New  York.     In  the  next  issue  of  P.  A.  there  is  to  be  an 


3136  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

article  by  a  Communist  writer  which  is  antagonistic  to  the  Chinese  council  and 
the  British  council.  He  likewise  does  not  represent  the  Soviet  council.  This 
will  be  a  leading  article  and  will  represent  a  personal  opinion. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Is  that  the  end  of  the  paragraph? 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  continue  reading,  please. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I"' thought  you  just  wanted  that  one  paragraph. 

Mr.  Morris.  Is  that  a  new  paragraph? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  enough,  then. 

The  Chairman.  No.     It  goes  over  on  the  next  page. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes.  [Heading:] 

Motiliev  said  that  it  would  be  better  to  put  as  leading  articles  one  that  repre- 
sented the  point  of  view  of  one  of  the  councils.  O.  L.  said  that  he  was  pre- 
pared to  consider  this  idea 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Actually  the  difference  is  that  counsel  and  the  Sena- 
tors are  looking  at  a  mimeographed  copy.  Mr.  Lattimore  is  look- 
ing at  the  photostat  of  the  original.  I  believe  as  the  photostat  shows 
it,  he  has  ended  the  reading  of  the  paragraph.  On  the  mimeo- 
graphed copy  it  goes  over  to  the  top  of  the  next  page,  and  it  can't  be 
determined  whether  it  is  a  new  paragraph  or  the  same  paragraph 
because  they  are  not  indented. 

The  Chairman.  All  right,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  you  testified  before  the  Tydings  Com- 
mittee that  you  did  not  know  Dr.  Chi  to  be  a  Communist. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  probably  did ;  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  we  had  better  read  into  the  record,  Mr.  Man- 
del,  page  887  of  the  Tydings  committee  hearings. 

Mr.  Chairman,  will  that  last  document  be  received  into  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Sour\vine.  As  identified  by  Mr.  Mandel  as  coming  from  the 
files  of  IPR  and  as  being  the  document  commented  upon  by  the  wit- 
ness.    Here  is  the  page  of  the  Tydings  transcript. 

The  Chairman.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question  which  I  think  the 
witness  has  already  answered.  The  letters  "O.  L."  stand  for  Owen 
Lattimore ;  is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  You  so  understand  that. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  this  is  the  Tydings  hearings 

Senator  Smith.  I  think  Dr.  Lattimore  made  it  clear,  but  lest  it 
may  not  be,  the  photostatic  copy  from  which  he  read  was  a  photostat 
of  the  original.     Have  you  seen  that  before  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  think  I  ever  saw  it  before 

The  Chairman.  I  want  to  ask  a  question  of  Mr.  Mandel.  Mr. 
Mandel,  is  this  a  true  and  correct  photostatic  copy  of  an  original  instru- 
ment found  in  the  files  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations? 

Mr.  Mandel.  It  is. 

The  Chah^man.  It  may  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  478"  and  is  as 
follows:) 

Exhibit  No.  478 

Meeting  on  Pacific  Affairs;  April  8;  Motiliev,  Voitinsky,  ECC;  OL; 

Hakondab;  HM 

Voitinsky  said  that  the  magazine  had  been  reviewed  twice  in  Tikhii  Okean  and 
there  the  general  opinion  about  it  had  been  stated.  Such  a  magazine  which  is 
important  should  have  a  definite  aim.    Although  different  opinions  are  expressed 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3137 

in  it,  there  should  be  a  general  line  in  it  and  this  should  be  the  struggle  for  peace. 
The  general  tenor  of  the  articles  should  be  to  show  that  collective  security  is  the 
only  possible  way  to  peace.  This  aim  is  so  wide  that  it  can  be  supported  by 
writers  of  all  shades  of  opinion.  At  present  the  magazine  has  no  line  and  this 
is  the  main  weakness. 

Voitinsky  said  that  the  article  by  Whyte  is  interesting  but  incorrect  in  its 
approach.  It  is  a  program  article,  about  IPR  policy.  It  treats  China  and  Japan 
on  the  same  footing  and  shows  no  aggressor.  How  can  there  be  an  objective 
study  of  the  Pacific  if  no  aggressor  is  shown.  Whyte  says  that  the  causes 
of  the  Pacific  problems  are  internal— in  China,  currency ;  in  Japan,  lack  of 
raw  materials — and  England  and  America  should  help  to  solve  these  problems. 
But  when  no  aggressor  is  recognized,  the  proposals  are  idealistic  and  weak,  for  it 
is  impossible  to  introduce  a  new  economic  policy  before  the  aggressor  is  stopped. 
Voitinsky  said  that  in  PA  China  is  not  treated  as  a  subject,  only  as  an  object. 
Therefore  the  writers  neglect  the  possibility  of  China  itself  affecting  the  solu- 
tion of  China's  problems.  This  is  historically  incorrect,  and  it  makes  it  impos- 
sible for  students  of  the  question  to  understand  the  current  movements  within 
China.  The  Isaaks  article,  which  is  written  at  a  very  low  level  and  is  incorrect, 
is  an  attempt  to  show  something  about  the  internal  situation  in  China. 

Voitinsky  said  that  there  was  little  in  PA  on  the  internal  situation  in  Japan. 
This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  Japan  is  not  regarded  as  an  aggressor.  But  it  is 
important  to  know  how  strong  Japan  is  socially  and  economically  internally. 
Likewise  there  is  little  on  the  question  of  nationalities — about  Mongolia,  and 
the  colonies  in  the  Far  East.  No  effort  is  made  to  show  that  Japan  is  trying  to 
exploit  national  culture  and  national  feelings.  In  fact  O.  L.  in  his  earlier 
articles  gave  Japan  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  and  said  that  Japan  might  help  these 
peoples. 

O.  L.  asked  if  the  article  on  the  Japanese  Monroe  Doctrine  was  not  about  these 
questions.  Voitinsky  said  that  it  was  good  about  the  juridicial  aspects.  But 
since  the  magazine  represents  an  organization  which  is  struggling  for  peace, 
there  were  much  greater  possibilities  for  writing  on  these  subjects. 

E.  C.  C.  said  that  the  constitution  of  the  IPR  states  as  its  object  the  study  of 
the  conditions  of  the  peoples  on  the  Pacific.  There  is  a  controversy  within  the 
institute  as  to  whether  the  object  is  entirely  scientific  study,  or  active  effort 
to  maintain  peace. 

O.  L.  said  that  the  review  of  the  magazine  in  Tikhii  Okean  was  entirely  correct 
when  it  said  that  PA  refiects  the  chaotic  conditions  in  the  opinions  in  capitalistic 
countries. 

Motiliev  said  that  if  the  object  is  to  reflect  the  conditions  and  life  of  the 
peoples,  still  PA  does  not  study  the  real  social  and  economic  life  inside  the  coun- 
tries— not  in  Japan,  Korea,  and  other  colonies.  An  objective  study  would  in- 
evitably show  exploitation  by  the  Japanese.  Likewise  the  internal  conditions 
of  China  are  not  shown — what  are  the  causes  of  the  rise  of  red  China ;  what  are 
the  causes  of  the  contradictions  in  China ;  what  are  the  tendencies  within  China. 
The  same  is  true  about  Australia  and  the  U.  S.  S.  R. 

O.  L.  asked  if  Kathleen  Barnes'  article  did  not  give  something  on  the  United 
States.  Motiliev  said  that  it  only  gave  one  side  of  the  picture  of  the  Soviet  Far 
East. 

Motiliev  said  that  even  if  the  aim  of  PA  was  to  characterize  the  general  con- 
ditions, it  was  impossible  to  do  this  without  a  definite  idea  about  them.  When 
no  definite  idea  is  given  for  a  magazine,  the  wrong  idea  is  conveyed  by  it.  M 
there  is  no  position  taken  on  the  problem  of  Japan's  aggression  in  China,  which 
is  now  the  fundamental  problem  in  the  Pacific,  then  it  seems  as  if  the  wrong 
position  had  been  taken.  In  practice  PA  gives  a  definite  political  analysis, 
which  is  one-sided  and  therefore  incorrect.  For  instance  the  Eggleston  article 
fully  justifies  Japan,  and  tries  to  prove  that  England  and  the  United  States 
are  to  blame  for  the  far-eastern  situation.  O.  L.  pointed  out  that  this  article 
reflects  a  definite  body  of  opinion.  Motiliev  said  that  he  was  not  against  pub- 
lishing this  article,  but  also  PA  must  give  an  analysis  of  the  contradictions  that 
are  found  in  Eggleston's  analysis.  This  is  very  difiicult  to  do,  because  the  IPR 
has  members  in  all  countries  involved.  But  in  order  to  satisfy  most  of  the 
members  of  the  institute,  Motiliev  thinks,  it  is  necessary  that  PA  have  a  definite 
political  position.  As  a  result  of  the  present  absence^  of  such  a  position,  the 
magazine  is  in  fact  directed  against  the  ideal  of  peace.  Even  if  the  IPR  doesn't 
aim  to  work  for  peace,  it  certainly  does  not  aim  for  war. 

E.  C.  C.  said  that  the  magazine  is  not  the  whole  of  the  institute.  In  some 
of  the  other  IPR  work  these  analyses  of  internal  conditions  are  being  given, 


3138  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

e.  g.,  a  book  will  appear  this  month  by  a  Japanese  on  Japanese  penetration  of 
mandated  islands;  a  study  is  completed  by  a  Korean  on  land  utilization  in 
Korea ;  a  study  is  being  done  on  agricultural  organization  in  New  Zealand  which 
shows  the  waste  that  there  has  been  in  the  land  policy  there ;  the  book  Key  Eco- 
nomic Areas  in  Chinese  History  is  written  by  a  Marxist  and  gives  an  analysis 
of  Chinese  internal  development.  O.  L.  said  that  in  the  next  issue  there  was 
to  be  an  article  on  the  rise  of  land  taxes  and  the  fall  of  dynasties  in  Chinese 
history,  which  was  written  by  a  Chinese,  treating  China  as  a  subject,  not  an 
object.  E.  C.  C.  said  that  PA  will  be  without  focus  until  the  Soviet  members 
contribute  to  it  regularly.  PA  has  never  received  the  article  from  Voitinsky  on 
agrarian  problems  in  China.  When  Soviet  articles  appear  regularly,  they  will 
make  the  issues  clearer  and  will  show  up  the  negative  quality  of  many  of  the 
oflipr  irticlos 

Motiliev  said  that  another  way  to  accomplish  this  was  through  greater  objec- 
tivity in  the  editorial  work.  For  instance  the  Isaacs  article  on  Perspectives  of 
the  Chinese  Revolution  is  written  on  a  very  low  level  and  is  incorrect.  An  article 
on  this  question  by  a  bourgeois  journalist  of  good  standing  would  be  interesting. 
But  this  is  a  Trotskyist  article  which  doesn't  reflect  the  opinion  of  any  of  the 
councils  of  the  IPR.  A  very  serious  answer  to  this  article  was  published  in 
China  Today,  but  only  extracts  from  this  answer  were  printed  in  PA.  Motiliev 
said  that  the  Soviet  Council  could  not  answer  this  article,  but  he  had  suggested 
tliat  some  of  the  Chinese  leaders  give  an  answer.  Motiliev  said  he  did  not  know 
who  the  editor  of  China  Today  is,  but  his  answer  expressed  the  opinion  of  50 
million  Chinese.  Motiliev  asked  why  this  article  was  made  the  leading  article. 
The  leading  article  should  express  the  opinion  of  some  one  of  the  member 
Councils,  aiotiliev  said  that  in  general  he  did  not  think  the  magazine  was  objec- 
tive, although  some  of  its  objects,  such  as  trying  to  show  different  shades  of 
opinions,  were  carried  out.  The  Isaacs  article  is  only  one  example.  For  in- 
stance the  article  on  Fisheries,  while  on  the  whole  objective,  contains  some  incor- 
rect information.  Possibly  this  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  author  did  not  know 
the  facts.  Motiliev  wrote  to  O.  L.  about  these  inaccuracies  and  nothing  appeared 
in  PA  about  them.  In  general  Motiliev  thought  that  O.  L.  made  it  more  difllcult 
for  himself  by  publishing  leading  articles  like  the  Isaacs  article  and  not  publish- 
ing the  answers  to  them. 

O.  L.  asked  if  Motiliev  had  received  both  his  long  letters  on  the  question  of 
PA  and  Motiliev  said  that  he  had  only  received  the  second.  O.  L.  said  that  his 
main  difficulties  had  been  two :  1.  When  he  took  over  the  editorship  of  PA 
it  was  after  the  last  conference,  and  he  and  E.  C.  C.  did  not  want  to  determine  a 
definite  policy  alone,  since  that  would  be  a  one-sided,  American  decision.  There- 
fore no  very  clear  policy  was  determined  and  this  is  to  be  done  at  Yosemite,  he 
hopes.  2.  He  has  had  trouble  getting  material  from  the  different  councils.  The 
lack  of  articles  on  Japan  is  not  for  lack  of  asking.  The  Japanese  Council  has 
pi'omised  articles  on  rice,  silk,  and  the  cooperative  movement.  In  the  first  five 
issues,  it  was  never  known  whether  there  would  be  enough  material  until  a  week 
before  the  magazine  went  to  press.  At  the  beginning  PA  had  no  prestige  and  it 
was  difficult  to  get  people  to  write  for  it.  Some  of  the  articles  in  the  first  issues 
are  padding,  due  to  lack  of  material.  Likewise,  the  Soviet  Council  did  not  send 
in  its  articles.  The  one  article  received  from  them  was  made  the  leading  article. 
It  has  only  been  in  the  last  2  or  3  months  that  O.  L.  has  felt  that  he  could  freely 
tui-n  down  articles.  In  the  case  of  the  Isaacs  article,  there  was  not  enough 
material  for  that  issue.  The  Chinese  Council  did  not  object  to  the  article  and 
would  give  no  answer  to  it  and  no  other  article  on  the  same  subject.  It  is  im- 
possible to  get  in  touch  with  the  Chinese  Communists  to  get  an  answei*  from 
them.  O.  L.  did  not  know  about  the  writer  in  China  Today  or  he  would  have 
tried  to  get  the  answer  published  in  PA  rather  than  in  China  Today.  However, 
when  it  was  published  in  China  Today,  the  question  came  up  whether  the  prece- 
dent sliould  be  set  of  republishing  materials  from  other  magazines.  It  had  never 
been  done,  and  PA  was  supposed  to  publish  new  material.  Therefore  O.  L.  de- 
cided to  print  an  extract  of  the  answer  and  give  it  a  prominent  place.  O.  L.  had 
previously  tried  to  get  other  articles  on  the  Chinese  Revolution,  but  this  was  the 
only  one  he  could  get.  It  was  made  a  leading  article  in  New  York.  In  the  next 
issue  of  PA  there  is  to  be  an  article  by  a  Communist  writer  which  is  antagonistic 
to  the  Chinese  Council  and  the  British  Council.  He  likewise  does  not  represent 
the  Soviet  Council.  This  will  be  a  leading  article  and  will  represent  a  personal 
opinion. 

IMotiliev  said  that  it  would  be  bettor  to  put  as  lending  articles  one  that  repre- 
sented the  point  of  view  of  one  of  the  councils.    O.  L.  said  that  he  was  prepared 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3139 

to  consider  this  idea,  but  often  before  he  has  not  had  an  important  article  which 
represented  a  council.  O.  L.  said  that  if  the  Soviet  group  would  show  in  their 
articles  a  general  line^a  struggle  for  peace — the  other  articles  would  naturally 
gravitate  to  that  line.  O.  L.  said  that  he  had  no  organizational  authority  to  tell 
the  councils  what  kind  of  articles  they  should  send  in.  He  hopes  that  this  will 
be  settled  at  Yosemite. 

Motiliev  said  that  it  was  a  dangerous  editorial  mistake  to  publish  the  Chamber- 
lin  review.  It  is  not  because  the  review  was  about  a  book  by  Stalin,  but  because 
in  the  same  review  there  was  a  review  of  a  book  by  Chernavin.  This  is  a  very 
important  political  question  for  them  here. 

They  have  no  objection  to  having  Stalin's  book  reviewed  and  they  are  willing 
to  answer  a  review,  but  the  review  must  be  done  with  due  respect,  to  a  person  in 
Stalin's  position.  Motiliev  asked  why  the  book  was  given  to  Chamberlin  who 
was  known  to  be  so  anti-Soviet.  (Incidentally  Chamberlin's  book  has  not  been 
received  here  for  reviewing.) 

O.  L.  said  that  he  had  not  realized  Chamberlin's  position,  but  as  soon  as  he 
learned  of  the  Soviet  opinion  about  Chamberlain,  he  canceled  an  article  on  the 
Soviet  press  which  he  had  asked  from  Chamberlin. 

Voitinsky  said  that  he  had  not  entirely  understood  E.  C.  C.'s  answer  to  the 
question  of  the  aim  of  the  institute.  Voitinsky  said  that  recently  many  organiza- 
tions which  had  previously  had  no  political  opinions  were  taking  definite  positions. 
The  IPR  is  a  big  organization  and  is  a  kind  of  unofficial  league  in  the  Pacific. 
Whyte  in  his  article  says  that  part  of  the  aim  of  the  IPR  is  to  find  a  solution  for 
the  situation  in  the  Pacific.  Therefore  the  IPR  must  take  some  line  on  this 
question.  Voitinsky  said  that  he  thought  the  IPR  and  PA  must  have  as  its  aim 
the  struggle  for  peace — through  scientific  study  and  research  aimed  in  that 
direction.  Voitinsky  said  that  last  year  this  point  was  not  urged  here,  because 
the  Soviet  group  was  still  new  in  the  IPR,  but  more  because  the  objective  situation 
was  not  what  it  is  today. 

ECC  said  that  this  change  in  attitude  toward  political  questions  in  the  IPR  was 
already  reflected  in  the  change  in  the  agenda  for  the  fifth  round  table.  Originally 
this  was  to  be  about  the  changing  balance  of  power  in  the  Pacific — just  an  objec- 
tive appraisal  of  the  shifting  balance.  Now  it  is  to  discuss  methods  of  peaceful 
change  and  solution  of  the  problem. 

O.  L.  said  that  he  was  willing  to  have  P.  A.  reflect  such  a  line,  but  these  positive 
ideas  can  only  be  started  positively.  He  cannot  dictate  to  the  other  councils  what 
they  must  write.  He  must  first  have  an  original  article  taking  a  stand,  and  this 
will  make  the  others  write  to  that  point. 

Voitinsky  said  that  it  would  he  possible  to  answer  the  Whyte  article. 

O.  L.  pointed  out  that  his  articles  in  PA  had  been  criticized  in  Tikhii  Okean, 
but  never  in  PA.  He  said  that  when  Motiliev  wrote  to  him  about  the  fisheries 
article,  he  had  sent  the  corrections  to  New  York,  but  they  were  too  late  to  be  in- 
cluded in  the  original  article.  He  did  not  know  that  Motiliev  wanted  to  have 
sections  of  his  letter  published.  O.  L.  has  considered  starting  a  letter  section  in 
PA.  but  to  date  there  hasn't  been  enough  material  to  make  it  possible. 

ECC  said  that  the  Isaacs  and  Chamberlin  articles  were  great  mistakes,  and 
would  not  be  repeated  in  the  future.  H.  M.  said  that  O.  L.  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Chamberlin  reviews.  That  was  done  on  the  responsibility  of  the  New 
York  Office. 

Motiliev  suggested  that  there  be  articles  on  sonie  of  the  following:  (1)  In- 
ternal relations  in  China,  Japan,  and  the  Japanese  colonies.  (2)  Economic  de- 
velopment of  the  U.  S.  S.  R.  as  a  whole  and  the  Soviet  Far  East.  (3)  General 
conditions  in  the  Pacific,  the  contradictions  between  countries,  the  question  of  war 
and  peace.  Articles  like  Eggleston's  should  be  printed,  but  they  should  be 
criticized  and  answered. 

O.  L.  said  that  he  tried  to  get  an  answer  to  this  article  from  many  people,  but 
they  all  said  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  Australian  Council  and  that  there 
was  no  need  to  answer  it.  Voitinsky  said  that  the  American  council  should  have 
answered  it. 

Motiliev  made  the  following  proposals  as  to  organization  of  the  magazine.  A. 
The  leading  article  should  always  express  the  opinion  of  a  definite  council.  It  is 
customary  to  have  the  leading  article  more  or  less  official.  B.  Articles  by  un- 
known and  irresponsible  writers  should  not  be  published  on  important  questions. 
But  there  should  be  articles  by  leading  personalities  who  are  of  interest,  no  mat- 
ter what  they  represent ;  e.  g.,  Bywater  and  Asiaticus.  C.  There  should  not  be 
criticisms  of  books  and  opinions  of  the  leading  personalities  of  the  various  mem- 
ber countries.  It  is  unnecessary  to  have  such  criticism,  it  is  not  part  of  the  work 
of  the  IPR,  and  it  embarrasses  the  members  of  the  councils. 


3140  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Voitinsky  said  that  now  the  Soviet  group  would  try  to  write  articles  for  PA. 
O  L  said  that  if  they  would  start  it  would  give  him  a  stronger  hand  with  the 
other  councils.  The  British  have  been  good  about  providing  articles  so  far,  but 
the  other  councils  have  not  been  so  good.  „..     , 

O.  L.  said  that  he  wanted  a  Soviet  review  of  the  Webb  book.    Voitmsky  said 

that  it  could  be  reviewed. 

X  I  e    King  Edward 

Stalin 

HiKOHITO 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  question  ?  I  think  you  were  asked 
to  read,  were  you  not,  Mr.  Mandel  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  asked  that  it  be  given  to  the  witness  so  that  the 
question  may  be  asked  of  him  if  he  did  so  testify  before  the  Tydings 
hearings. 

(Mr.  Lattimore  examining  document.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  question  is  from  Senator  Hickenlooper : 

During  your  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Chi  prior  to  the  war  or  during  the  war  did 
you  believe  him  to  be  or  did  you  learn  him  to  be  a  Communist  at  any  time? 

Dr.  Lattimore — 

It  should  have  been  Mr,  Lattimore,  of  course. 

Dr.  Lattimore.  No,  sir ;  no,  sir. 

Is  that  all  you  want  me  to  read  ? 

Senator  Ferguson.  Just  a  moment.  You  had  two  answers,  mean- 
ing you  answered  both ;  yes  sir  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  just  repeated  my  answer,  I  suppose.  I  am  read- 
ing the  transcript. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  I  think  that  answers  counsel's  question. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  testify  before  this  committee  in  executive  ses- 
sion that  you  never  at  any  time  knew  that  Dr.  Clii  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  probably  did.    May  I  see  the  record? 

Mr.  Morris.  Executive  session,  155,  top  of  the  page. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Question  by  Mr.  Morris : 

Dr.  Lattimore,  did  you  ever  at  any  time  know  that  Dr.  Chi  was  a  Communist? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  Young  Dr.  Chi? 
Mr.  Morris.  Young  Dr.  Chi. 
Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  didn't. 

Mr.  IMoRRis.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  testify  in  executive  session 
that  only  on  one  occasion  did  you  meet  Dr.  Chi's  father  in  China? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  I  testified  that  I  met  Dr.  Chi's  father  in  China  only 
on  one  occasion.  Later  my  memory  was  refreshed  and  I  wrote  in  to 
the  committee  explaining  that  I  met  him  twice. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  asked  what  you  testified  to. 

Mr.  Morris.  You  did  testify  to  that  effect  and  you  did  also  send 
a  letter  to  the  committee  stating  that  you  had  learned  otherwise. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Morris.  Is  this  the  letter  you  sent  to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  i§  the  letter,  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  that  letter  be  received  into  the 
record  as  a  change  that  Mr.  Lattimore  wanted  to  make  in  his  testi- 
mony in  the  executive  session  before  this  committee  ? 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  see  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  If  that  is  the  case,  the  witness  should  adopt  this 
letter  as  his  testimony  now.     I  assume  that  is  his  desire. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Sure. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3141 

Mr.  Morris.  Except,  of  course,  that  he  does  go  on  record  to  show 
that  he  learned  this  some  time  ago  and  not  today. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  He  adopts  this  letter  as  written  as  his  testimony 
now. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  your  letter ;  is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  479"  and  is 
as  follows :) 

Exhibit  No.  479 

The  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
Walter  Hines  Page  School  of  International  Relations, 

Baltimore  18,  Md.,  September  2, 1951. 
Hon.  Pat  McCarran, 

Chairman,  Senate  Judiciary  Committee, 

Seriate  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 
My  Dear  Mr.  Chairman  :  It  is  my  recollection  that  in  executive  session  of  your 
subcommittee  on  July  13  I  was  asked  about  meeting  Prof.  K.  C.  CM,  then  Com- 
missioner of  Education  in  Shansi  Province,  in  China,  in  1937,  and  that  I  con- 
firmed that  I  had.  It  is  further  my  recollection  that  I  was  asked  whether  I  had 
met  him  in  China  on  any  other  occasion,  and  that  I  replied  that  I  could  not 
remember  that  I  had. 

It  has  now  been  drawn  to  my  attention  that  in  a  public  session  of  your  sub- 
committee Dr.  K.  A.  Wittfogel  testified  that  he  and  I  had  met  Professor  Chi,  also 
in  Shansi  Province,  in  1935.  This  testimony  has  refreshed  my  memory,  and 
I  wish  to  confirm  that  I  did  meet  Professor  Chi  in  1935,  in  company  with  Dr.  Witt- 
fogel and,  if  I  remember  rightly.  Dr.  Woodbridge  Bingham.  I  believe  also  that 
I  remember  that  Professor  Chi  was  advised  beforehand  of  our  coming  to  call 
on  him  by  Dr.  Walter  Judd,  now  Representative  Judd,  who  was  then  a  missionary 
in  that  province,  and  whose  mission  was  on  cordial  terms  with  the  Chi  family. 
I  wish  to  add  to  my  previous  testimony  accordingly. 
Yours  sincerely, 

[s]     Owen  Lattimore, 
[t]     Owen  Lattimore. 
OL:c. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  testify  in  executive  session  before  this  com- 
mittee that  you  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  Dr.  Chi  could  be  a 
Communist?    That  is  155. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Again  young  Dr.  Chi  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Young  Dr.  Chi. 

(Mr.  Lattimore  examining  transcript.) 

Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  had  no  reasons  to  believe  that  he  could  be  a 
Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  Had  anyone  ever  told  you  he  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  I  think  that  is  enough. 

Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  in  executive  session  before  this  committee 
testify  that  no  one  ever  told  you  that  Dr.  Chi  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Probably. 

Mr.  Morris.  Didn't  you  just  read  it  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  are  referring  to  this  ?    Yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Your  answer  is  "Yes"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  answer  was  "Yes" ;  yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  not  testify  in  executive  session  before  this 
committee  that  no  one  had  related  to  you  the  circumstances,  the  inevi- 
table conclusion  of  which  would  have  been  that  Chi  was  a  Communist  ? 


3142  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  just  read  that  in  the  transcript. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  page  156,  another  place,  Mr.  Lattimore.  You 
may  want  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  did  see  it  just  now. 

Mr.  Morris.  Very  good.    Your  answer  is  "Yes"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

ISIr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  receive  an  official  report  to  the  effect  that 
Dr.  Chi  was  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  that  I  can  recollect. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  testify  before  this  committee  that  you  did  not 
have  any  reasonable  grounds  to  believe  that  Dr.  Chi  was  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  believe  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  155. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  my  testimony : 

In  the  case  of  Dr.  Cbi,  my  principal  contact  with  him  was  during  the  war 
years,  when  he  was  holding  extremely  high  and  confidential  positions  under  the 
Chinese  Nationalist  Government. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  you  had  no  reasons  to  believe  that  he  could  be  a 
Communist? 

Mr,  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  read  further?    I  think  there  is  another  refer- 
ence there. 
Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Morris.  Had  anyone  ever  told  you  he  was  a  Communist? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  So  your  answer  to  that  last  question  is — — 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  that  was  my  testimony. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  testify  before  this  committee  in  executive 
session  that  you  had  no  evidence  that  he  might  be  a  Communist  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  presume  so. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  same  page,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  What  was  that  page? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  155. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  What  was  the  (question? 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question  again. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  testify  before  this  committee  in  executive  ses- 
sion that  you  had  no  evidence  that  he  might  be  a  Communist  ? 

The  Chairman.  Page  155  of  the  executive  hearing. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Had  you  any  evidence  that  they  might  be  Communists? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  case  of  Miss  Chomeley  I  knew  her  much  too  little  to 
have  an  authoritative  opinion  one  way  or  another. 

In  the  case  of  Dr.  Chi,  my  principal  contact  with  him  was  during  the  war 
years,  when  he  was  holding  extremely  high  and  confidential  positions  under  the 
Chinese  Nationalist  Government. 

Mr.  Morris.  Well,  did  you  testify  before  this  committee  in  executive 
session  that  you  had  no  evidence  that  he  might  be  a  Communist? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator  Ferguson  then  goes  on : 

And  you  had  no  reasons  to  believe  that  he  could  be  a  Communist? 
Mr.  IjAttimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  So  what  is  the  answer  to  that  question  ? 
Mr.  Lai'itmore  (reading)  : 

Mr.  INIORRis.  Had  anyone  ever  told  you  that  he  was  a  Communist? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3143 

Mr.  Morris.  Had  anyone  ever  related  to  you  the  circumstances,  the  inevitaoie 
conclusion  of  which  would  have  been  that  he  was  a  Communist? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Senator  Ferguson".  That  is,  the  answer  was  "No"  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  answer  was  "No." 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  answer  to  this  question  is  "Yes,"  that  he 
so  testified  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  that  is  the  same  question,  Mr.  Morris ; 
is  it? 

Mr.  Morris.  May  I  see  page  155,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Fortas.  The  record  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  record  does  speak  for  itself.  It  has  been  read 
here  now  by  the  witness  and  it  is  a  part  of  the  record.  There  is  no 
point  in  quibblino;  over  what  it  said. 

Mr.  Fortas.  That  is  how  I  characterize  it.    I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  think  counsel's  original  question  was  intended  to 
simplify  it,  but  it  hasn't  turned  out  that  way. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  not  testify  that  Dr.  Chi,  as  far  as  your  con- 
tacts with  him  were  concerned,  held  an  extremely  high  and  confidential 
position  in  the  Chinese  Nationalist  Government  ? 
'  Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  Dr.  Chi  wrote  for  China  Today 
under  the  name  of  Hansu  Chan  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  don't  think  I  ever  knew  that. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  ever  know  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  memory  is  not  clear.  It  may  have  been  in  one 
of  the  transcripts  of  tJiis  committee  that  I  have  read. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Mandel,  will  you  read  the  testimony  on  page  81 
of  the  executive  session,  the  executive  session  with  Mr.  Lattimore? 

]\Ir.  Sourwine.  If  it  is  Mr.  Lattimore's  testimony,  why  not  give  it  to 
him  and  ask  him  if  he  testified  that  way  ?     This  is  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  will  you  read  page  81 — your  testimony 
on  that  page  relative  to  this  question? 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question  again,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  he  wrote  for  China  Today  as  Hansu 
Chan  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  he  contributed  to  China  Today? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  learned  that  some  time  ago.  I  didn't  know  it  at  the  time  tnai, 
I  knew  him. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  he  not  make  a  contribution  under  a  pseudonym? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  So  I  have  been  told. 

Mr.  Morris.  Do  you  remember  what  the  pseudonym  was? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Morris.  When  were  you  told  that,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  that  was  in  some  publication  by  Kohlberg  or  some 
other  member  of  the  China  Lobby. 

Mr.  Morris.  "Wlien  were  you  told  that  Dr.  Chi  wrote  for  China 
Today? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  think  my  answer  in  executive  session  covers  my 
recollection  of  it,  Mr.  Morris. 

Mr.  Morris.  And  what  is  that,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  I  read  about  it  in  some  publication. 

Mr.  Morris.  Can  you  give  us  the  date  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  can't. 


3144  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  that  China  Today  was  a  Communist  or 
pro-Communist  publication? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  didn't,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  testify  before  the  Tydings  committee  that 
you  did  not  know  the  New  China  Daily  News  to  be  Communist  m 
1942  or  1943? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  amplify  my  answer  on  the  subject  o±  China 

Today?  .^    , 

Mr.  Morris.  The  question,  Mr.  Lattimore,  is,  Did  you  testify  be- 
fore the  Tydings  committee  that  you  did  not  know  the  New  China 
Daily  News  to  be  Communist  in  1942-43. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  mean  the  previous  question  on  China  Today. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  previous  question  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Did  you  know  China  Today  to  be  Communist  or  pro- 
Communist? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  don't  think  I  ever  knew  that  until  much  later, 
and  among  my  reasons  for  not  thinking  it  Communist  was  the  fact 
that  its  contributors  included  Mme.  Chiang  Kai-shek,  Geraldine 
Fitch,  now  active  in  the  China  lobby;  her  husband,  George  Fitch, 
of  the  YMCA 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Are  you  testifying  from  memory,  Mr.  Lattimore.? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No,  I  am  testifying  from  looking  up  some  copies 
of  China  Today  recently. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Senator  Schwellenbach ;  Freda  Utley,  a  former 
member  of  the  staff  of  this  committee ;  Emory  Luccock,  L-u-c-c-o-c-k, 
pastor  of  the  American  Church  in  Shanghai;  Edward  Hume,  di- 
rector of  the  Christian  Medical  Council;  Harry  B.  Price;  and  Father 
Charles  Meeus,  M-e-e-u-s.  In  November  1938  it  published  an  inter- 
view with  Bishop  Paul  Yu  Pin  and  in  the  same  month  Walter  Judd 
spoke  at  a  meeting  sponsored  by  the  American  Friends  of  the  Chinese 
People  of  which  China  Today  was  the  organ.  On  the  cover  of  the 
July  1939  issue  was  a  picture  of  the  Chiang  Kai-sheks. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  this  point  may  I  have  referred  to  the 
record  our  exhibit  No.  54  which  was  introduced  in  open  session  on 
August  42, 1951.  Mr.  Mandel,  will  you  read  that  letter  into  the  record 
at  this  time?  I  would  like  that  to  apply  to  this  part  of  the  record, 
Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mandel.  This  is  a  photostat  of  a  letter  dated  December  13, 
1939,  addressed  to  Mr.  Max  Granich,  China  Today,  168  West  Twenty- 
third  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y.  It  is  evidently  a  photostat  of  a  car- 
bon.   There  is  a  typed  signature  of  Owen  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Morris.  Was  the  document  taken  from  the  files? 

Mr.  Mandel.  The  document  was  taken  from  the  files  of  the  In- 
stitute of  Pacific  Relations. 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  read  the  first  paragraph,  Mr.  Mandel? 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes. 

Deab  Mk.  Granich  :  Thank  you  for  your  letter  of  December  11.  I  am  afraid 
that  my  position  as  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs  makes  it  impossible  for  me  to  join 
the  editorial  board  of  China  Today.  I  am  a  member  of  the  international  secre- 
tariat of  tlie  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations).  This  means  that  one  of  my  em- 
ployers is  the  .Japanese  council  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Relations.  There  has 
already  been  a  considerable  kick  about  my  being  on  the  board  of  Amerasia.  It 
is  probably  hotter  for  me  not  to  invite  extra  kicks  by  going  on  the  board  of 
China  Today,  which  is  more  partisan,  and  more  obviously  partisan,  than 
Amerasia. 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3145 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Can  that  be  shown  to  the  witness  ? 

(Document  shown  to  Mr.  Lattimore.) 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  is  that  a  copy  of  a  letter  which  you 
wrote  ? 

Mr.  LATTmoRE.  Yes,  it  is. 

There  is  another  paragraph  here  that  has  not  been  read  into  the 
record. 

Mr.  Morris.  Would  you  like  to  read  it  in,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  The  whole  thing  is  in  the  record ;  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes,  it  is,  Mr.  Sourwine.  Would  you  like  to  read  it, 
Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  LATTmoRE  (reading)  : 

I  have  been  desperately  busy  the  last  few  months  completing  a  book,  and  cou- 
sequently  have  published  very  little  in  magazines.  I  am  expecting  to  write  some 
articles  in  the  next  few  months,  but  I  think  you  will  agree  that  these  articles 
would  have  their  maximum  impact  if  not  published  in  magazines  which  are 
devoted  to  "the  cause  of  China." 

Mr.  Morris.  "The  cause  of  China"  is  in  quotes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  "The  cause  of  China"  is  in  quotes. 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Did  you  testify  before  the  Tydings  committee  that  you  did  not  Know 
the  New  China  Daily  News  to  be  Communist  in  1942-43? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  1942-43  ?     Yes,  I  believe  I  did. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  have  introduced  or  a 
reply  to  the  record  at  this  time  exhibit  No.  35,  which  was  introduced 
into  the  record  on  July  26,  1951,  page  180.  Mr.  Mandel,  will  you 
identify  this  document  and  read  it  into  the  record  ? 

Mr.  Mandel.  This  is  a  photostat  of  a  document,  of  a  carbon  copy, 
in  the  files  of  the  Institute  of  Pacific  Eelations.  It  is  dated  October 
17,  1910.  At  the  top  are  initials  ECC  and  WLH.  It  is  addressed 
to  Mr.  F.  V.  Field,  American  Peace  Mobilization,  1116  Vermont 
Avenue,  NW.,  Washington,  D.  C.  The  typed  signature  is  Owen 
Lattimore. 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  read,  Mr.  Mandel. 

Mr.  Mandel.  Yes.     [Reading :] 

Dear  Fred  :  Enclosed  I  am  sending  you  an  article  submitted  to  me  by  Asiaticus. 
For  readers  of  Pacific  Affairs,  it  would  read  like  propaganda,  and  rhapsodical 
propaganda  at  that.  As  the  article  is  also  too  long,  however,  we  might  be 
able  to  shorten  it,  pruning  out  a  great  many  adjectives  but  still  retaining  the 
realistic  points.     However,  it  is  too  late  for  our  December  issue. 

I  am  therefore  sending  you  the  article  as  is,  to  see  whether  you  may  have 
any  suggestions  for  placing  it. 

The  sooner  you  can  look  in  on  us,  the  better  we'll  be  pleased. 
Yours, 

Owen  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  see  that? 
Mr.  Morris.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  identify  that  letter,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  This  is  quite  evidently  a  letter  that  I  wrote;  yes. 
Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  for  a  short  recess  in  execu- 
tive session. 
The  Chairman.  Just  1  minute. 
Mr.  Lattimore.  The  date  is  1940,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  ask  for  a  short  recess  in  executive  session  ? 
The  Chairman.  Very  well. 


3146  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Could  the  committee  retire,  this  room  being  as 
full  as  it  is. 

(Whereupon,  at  11: 15  a.  m.  the  subcommittee  Avent  into  executive 
session.) 

(Whereupon,  at  11 :  30  a.  m.,  the  hearing  was  reconvened.) 

The  CHAiR]NrAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  add  to  an  answer  that  I 
made  to  Mr.  Morris  sometime  ago,  when  he  was  asking  me  about 
Communist  contributors  to  Pacific  Affairs? 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  this  morning? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  morning's  session,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  question?  We  want  the  question 
first. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Could  you  remember  the  question,  Mr.  Morris? 
It  was  about  Communist  contributors  to  Pacific  Affairs. 

The  Chairman.  Will  the  reporter  read  the  question? 

Mr.  Latti3iore.  It  was  a  question  something  about  "Did  you  ever 
publish  Communist  contributors?"  or  something  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  Morris.  When  you  were  editor  of  the  publication  Pacific  Af- 
fairs, did  you  ever  publish  an  article  by  a  person  whom  you  knew 
to  be  a  Communist  ? 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  the  question  to  which  I  refer.  I  merely 
wanted  to  point  out 

The  Chairman.  What  was  your  answer  to  it,  please?  Mr.  Morris, 
will  you  give  the  question  so  the  reporter  can  go  through  his  notes  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  The  question  was :  When  you  were  editor  of  the  pub- 
lication Pacific  Affairs,  did  you  ever  publish  an  article  by  a  person 
whom  you  knew  to  be  a  Communist  ?  That  was  the  seventh  question 
on  my  list  here. 

(The  record  was  read  by  the  reporter  as  follows:) 

Mr.  Morris.  When  you  were  the  editor  of  the  publication  Pacific  Affairs,  did 
you  ever  publish  an  article  by  a  person  whom  you  knew  to  be  a  Communist? 
Mr.  Lattimore.  Apart  from  Russian  contributions,  no. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  simply  wanted  to  point  out,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
my  memory  had  slipped  a  rather  obvious  cog,  since,  on  page  6  of  the 
statement  that  I  read  before  this  committee  there  is  the  following : 

The  Chairman.  Page  6  of  what  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Of  my  statement  prepared  for  this  committee. 

*  *  *  an  article  by  a  Chinese  Communist  which  was  clearly  labeled  as 
such  and  was  presented  as  an  example  of  what  the  Chinese  Communists  were 
saying. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  identified  that,  I  believe,  under  questioning,  as 
an  article  written  by  Man  Ning,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Lattiimore.  I  think  I  may  have  said  that  it  might  have  been 
by  him.  My  recollection  is  not  clear.  As  I  recall,  it  was  an  article 
about  the  Chinese  Communists  in  northwest  China  which  had  been 
originally  ]H-iiited  in  China,  and  was  translated  and  sent  to  us,  and 
we  published  it,  labeling  it  as  a  translation  of  a  Chinese  Communist 
article,  giving  it  as  an  example  of  what  the  Communists  were  saying 
in  China. 

Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Lattimore,  will  you  take  this  issue  of  June  1936, 
Pacific  Affairs,  and  tell  us  which  article  there  is  referred  to  as  the 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3147 

article  by  a  Commimist  writer  which  is  antagonistic  to  the  Chinese 
council  and  the  British  council,  referred  to  in  the  minutes  which  have 
been  presented  to  you  of  the  April  8,  1936,  meeting  in  Moscow? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  point  to  such  an  article,  Mr.  Morris.  I  be- 
lieve the  note  that  was  read  was  something  about  a  Chinese  Com- 
munist, wasn't  it? 

Mr.  Morris.  What  note  are  you  referring  to,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  minutes  of  that  meeting  in  Moscow. 

Mr.  Morris.  There  is  no  reference  to  a  Chinese  Communist  writer 
here,  the  statement  is 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  see  what  the  original  text  was  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  That  is  a  stencil,  Mr.  Lattimore. 

Mr.  Lattimore  (reading)  : 

In  the  next  issue  of  PA,  there  is  to  be  an  article  by  a  Communist  writer  which 
is  antagonistic  to  the  Chinese  council  and  the  British  council. 

The  Chairman.  T\niat  is  the  question,  please? 

Mr.  Morris.  Wliat  is  the  Communist  article  that  you  referred  to  ? 
According  to  these  minutes,  you  say  it  is  coming  out  in  the  next  issue 
of  Pacific  Affairs,  which  you  now  have  before  you. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  recall.  I  don't  believe  it  refers  to  this  ar- 
ticle by  Asiaticus,  if  that  is  what  you  mean. 

Mr.  Morris.  Does  not  the  article  by  Asiaticus — is  it  not  antagonis- 
tic to  both  the  Chinese  council  and  the  British  council? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  think  it  is  antagonistic  to  the  Chinese 
council. 

Mr.  Morris.  It  talks  about  usury  on  the  part  of  the  Chinese  Gov- 
ernment, doesn't  it  ? 

Would  you  look  at  it  a  minute,  Mr.  Lattimore? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Where  is  the  article  now?  Can  you  give  me  the 
page  reference  ?     Where  is  the  statement  about  usury  ? 

Mr.  SotTRWT^NE.  Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Lattimore,  while  we  are 
waiting  to  find  that,  that  you  were  not  referring  to  the  Asiaticus 
article  during  this  conference  with  Motiliev,  Voitinsk}^,  and  the 
others  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  my  recollection  is  that  at  that  time,  or  just  be- 
fore that  time,  while  I  was  in  China,  I  had  been  trying  to  get  hold 
of  a  Chinese  Communist  article  of  some  kind,  and  that  I  thought  I 
had,  but  eventually  failed.  My  recollection  is  that  happened  several 
times.     There  may  be  some  correspondence  about  it  in  the  files. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  are  saying  that,  to  the  best  of  your  memory, 
Asiaticus  was  not  a  subject  for  discussion  at  this  conference? 

Mr.  Latti3iore.  To  the  best  of  my  memory,  this  reference  in  the 
conference  is  not  to  Asiaticus. 

Mr.  Morris.  When  did  that  particular  article  go  to  press,  Mr. 
Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  i-emember. 

Mr.  Morris.  May  I  get  back  to  this  other  question  about  the  usury  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Surely. 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  read  the  first  paragraph  on  the  top  of  page 
167. 

Mr.  Lattoiore.  The  whole  paragraph  ? 

Mr.  Morris.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattijiore.  On  the  top  of  page  167. 


3148  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Nor  was  this  all.  Besides  the  lucrative  business  for  the  banks  and  bondholders, 
there  were  other  advantages,  some  of  which  may  be  quoted  from  clauses  of  the 
loan  agreement.  First  of  all,  the  loan  was  to  be  secured  on  "the  entire  revenues 
of  the  Chinese  Maritime  Customs."  In  addition  to  this,  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment undertook  that  "the  administration  of  the  Chinese  Maritime  Custom  Serv- 
ice shall  remain  as  at  present  during  the  currency  of  this  loan."  This  makes  it 
possible  to  understand  another  of  the  clauses  reading  as  follows :  "During  the  said 
term  of  45  years,  the  amortization  shall  not  be  increased  nor  the  loan  redeemed 
nor  converted  by  the  Chinese  Government." 

The  Hongkong  and  Shanghai  Banking  Corp.,  which  alone  took  half  of  the  loan, 
became  at  the  same  time  the  depositary  bank  of  the  Maritime  Customs,  the  biggest 
source  of  Chinese  public  income.  The  gigantic  usury  and  national  humiliation 
contained  in  this  one  loan  agreement  are  guaranteed  to  this  day  by  the  British 
supervisory  control  of  the  Maritime  Customs  and  executed  by  the  Honkong  and 
Shanghai  Banking  Corp.,  the  trustees  of  almost  all  of  the  British  loans  to  the 
Chinese  Government. 

Mr.  Morris,  I  should  like  to  point  out  that  that  paragraph  would 
have  been  entirely  welcome  to  the  Chinese  council  of  the  IPR  as  of 
1936. 

Mr.  ]\IoRRis.  What  is  the  national  humiliation  referred  to  ? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  That  refers  to  the  kind  of  loans — the  kind  of  loan 
agreements  that  China  had  to  sign  before  the  time  of  the  Nationalist 
Government,  and  protests  against  such  loans  and  demands  for  revisions 
of  such  treaties  were  part  of  the  policy  of  the  Chinese  Nationalist 
Government. 

Mr.  Morris.  And  what  was  the  usury  referred  to,  on  whose  part? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  say  that  referred  to  the  British.  I  may  add 
that  this  particular  article  by  Asiaticus  was  submitted  to  the  British 
in  advance,  met  with  protests  from  them  on  the  interpretation  of  the 
facts,  but  none  of  the  facts  were  disputed  and  the  criticism  or  sugges- 
tion was  not  made  that  it  was  an  article  by  a  Communist. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  if  the  chairman  will  permit 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  So  that  we  may  get  correctly  what  you  referred  to 
as  your  reference  earlier  in  your  statement  to  an  article  by  a  Chinese 
Communist,  is  that  from  page  6  of  your  statement  ? 

;Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  said  it  was  clearly  established  in  the  Tydings 
committee  hearings  that  in  fact — 

I  had  never  called  the  Chinese  Communists  agrarian  reformers,  nor  had  Pacific 
Affairs  carried  articles  calling  them  agrarian  reformers,  with  the  single  excep- 
tion of  an  article  by  a  Chinese  Communist  which  was  clearly  labeled  as  such, 
and  was  presented  as  an  example  of  what  the  Chinese  Communists  were  saying. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  SouKwiNE.  I  had  asked  you  at  the  time  if  that  article  that  you 
referred  to  was  not  the  article  Agrarian  Democracy  in  Northwest 
China  by  Mau  Ming. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  had  forgotten  the  name  Mau  Ming,  but  by  its  title 
of  the  article,  I  recognize  it.    That  is  the  article. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  the  article  that  you  did  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  does  that  appear  in  this  issue  of  Pacific  Affairs ; 
does  it? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  It  does  not  appear  in  this  issue  of  Pacific  Affairs, 
and  in  the  issue  in  which  it  does  appear  the  article  is  identified,  the 
original  Chinese  publication  is  identified,  the  name  of  the  translator 
is  given. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3149 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Now,  in  this  conference  that  yon  were  having,  sir, 
on  April  8,  tlie  memorandum  recites  that  yon  stated  that  the  next  issue 
of  Pacific  Affairs — that  is,  the  next  issue  after  the  conference— was 
to  have  an  article  by  a  Conununist  writer  which  would  be  antagonistic' 
to  the  Chinese  council  and  the  British  council. 

Are  you  now  stating  that  there  was  in  fact  no  such  article  published 
in  the  next  issue  of  Pacific  Affairs,  that  is,  this  June  issue  that  we  have 
before  us? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  That  is  my  recollection.  My  general  recollection 
of  that  period,  as  I  say,  is  that  as  editor  of  Pacific  Affairs  I  was  try- 
ing to  get  something  that  would  represent  the  Communist  problem  in 
China ;  this  problem  was  of  growing  importance,  other  publications 
were  trying  to  get  material  on  it,  and  I  was  trying  to  find  a  Chinese 
Communist  who  would  write  an  article  for  us;  maybe  it  would  have 
to  be  translated  or  something  of  that  kind, 

I  never  succeeded  in  getting  one. 

Mr.  SouRwiXE.  Where  was  that  conference  held,  this  meeting  be- 
tween yourself,  Motiliev,  Voitinsky,  Harondar,  and  HM.  I  suppose 
that  is  Harriet  Moore  ? 

iNIr.  Lattimore.  Yes;  that  must  have  been  Harriet  Moore. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  Wh.ere  was  it  held? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  AMiere  was  it  held? 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  What  country  and  city? 

]\Ir.  Lattimore.  It  was  held  at  the  office  of  the  Russian  council  of 
the  IPR,  as  far  as  I  remember. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  In  Russia? 

IVIr.  Lattimore.  In  Russia,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  Moscow? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  Moscow. 

Mr.  SouRwixE.  Actually,  that  was  April  8,  and  we  are  talking  about 
the  June  issue.    Had  not  the  June  issue  already  closed  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Lattimor.  I  couldn't  tell  you  whether  it  had  or  not. 

Mr.  SouR^^^XE.  You  had  a  6-weeks  lag  when  you  were  editing  it 
from  Baltimore,  and  a  much  longer  lag  when  you  were  out  of  the 
country,  isn't  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Latti^more.  I  am  not  sure  what  the  lag  was.  There  may  have 
been  an  article  submitted  which  was  considered,  you  know,  just  a 
Communist  tirade  and  not  what  we  want,  and  therefore  thrown  out, 
or  something  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  SouRwixE.  Certainly  you  had  to  close  this  book  at  least  a 
month  before  it  was  printed,  did  you  not  ?  _ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  You  may  remember,  ]Mr.  Sourwine,  that  when  I 
asked  you  about  the  lag  in  publication,  I  was  extremely  uncertain 
on  the  subject. 

Mr.  SoFRwixE.  Well,  you  edited  this  magazine  for  some  years, 

didn't  vou  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes;  I  did. 

:Mr.  Sottrwixe.  What  is  the  shortest  lag  you  ever  had  between 
closiiiiT  fiud  printiiiji?     That  is  something  you  would  remember. 

Mr.^^LATTi^iioRE.  Xo:  it  is  simply  that  I  have  a  general  memory 
that  there  was  a  lag.    I  don't  remember  exactly  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Sox  RwixE.  Are  you  telling  us  here,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  you 
could  have  edited  a  magazine  for  years  and  not  known  what  the  dead- 
line was? 

88348— 52— pt.  9— — 17 


3150  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  If  I  had  edited  a  magazine  that  always  had  the 
same  deadline,  I  would  probably  remember.  But  this  was  an  ex- 
tremely shifting  business. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  you  say  shifting? 

Mr.  LA-mMORE.  Yes;  because  I  was  editing  from  different  places, 
and  my  general  recollection  is  that  the  first  few  years,  you  see — I  be- 
gan in  1934 — if  we  had  an  April  issue,  that  it  should  appear  in  April, 
that  in  the  early  years,  owing  to  delay  in  getting  material,  sometimes 
the  April  issue  would  apjDear  after  April,  or  the  June  issue  after 
June. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  I  am  not  asking  you  when  it  appeared.  I  am  simply 
asking  you  what  was  your  minimum  time  lag,  what  was  your  deadline 
schedule,  how  long  before  the  actual  publication  did  you  have  to  close 
the  forms,  did  you  have  to  have  your  copy  in  ? 

You  dealt  with  that.  You  met  that  every  quarter.  Now,  cer- 
tainly you  can  give  us  some  idea  about  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  met  it  in  a  different  way  in  many  quarters,  Mr. 
Sourwine. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  answering  the  question  at  all,  Mr. 
Lattimore.    Get  at  the  question,  please. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  answering  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

The  Chairman.  Give  your  best  judgment,  if  you  cannot  do  any 
better,  as  to  what  the  lag  was.    That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  there  ever  was  any  definite  lag, 
unless  maybe  after  1938,  when  I  was  editing  from  Baltimore  and  we 
were  close  at  hand. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  had  to  have  your  copy  in  at  least  a  week  before 
the  magazine  was  out  in  print,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  couldn't  tell  you.  I  never  handled  that.  I  sent 
my  stuff  to  the  New  York  office,  and  the  New  York  office  handled  the 
whole  question  of  printing,  printing  contracts,  distribution,  mailing 
out,  and  so  on.     I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  are  testifying  under  oath  here,  sir.  Are  you 
telling  this  committee  as  editor  of  this  magazine  you  don't  know 
whether  you  had  to  have  your  copy  in  at  least  a  week  before  the  pub- 
lication date  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  am  saying,  Mr.  Sourwine,  that  I  don't  remem- 
ber what  the  deadline  was. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Do  you  know  whether  you  had  to  have  it  in  at  least, 
a  week  before  the  publication  ? 
.  Mr.  Laitimore.  I  should  think  probably  at  least  a  week;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Don't  you  know  whether  it  had  to  be  at  least  a 
week? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  But  the  publication  date  itself  would  vary,  Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  By  publication  date,  you  are  probably  talking  about 
the  date  appearing  on  the  magazine,  and  I  am  talking  about  the  date 
that  it  actually  came  off  the  press.  Don't  you  know  that  you  had  to 
have  your  copy  in  at  least  a  week  before  the  actual  publication  came 
off  the  press  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  will  accept  your  estimate  of  that. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  am  not  estimating.  I  am  asking  you  to  state 
categorically,  do  you  know  or  do  you  not  know  that  you  had  to  have 
your  copy  in  at  least  a  week  before  that  magazine  came  off  the  press  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3151 

Mr.  Latteviore.  All  that  I  can  testify,  Mr.  Sourwine,  is  that  we 
used  to  correspond  back  and  forth  with  New  York,  and  wherever  I 
was,  and  they  would  say  "Will  the  copy  be  in  by"  such  and  such 
a  date,  and  when  the  copy  was  in,  it  was  up  to  them  to  get  it  to  the 
printer  and  get  it  out. 

Mr.  SouR^^^NE.  Are  you  saying  that  you  do  not,  then,  know  that 
you  had  to  have  your  copy  in  at  least  a  week  before  the  magazine 
came  off  the  press  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  know  anything  more  than  that  I  would, 
by  correspondence,  fix  a  date  with  the  New  York  office  when  I  would 
regard  my  copy  sent  in  for  the  magazine  as  complete. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  would  that  date  bear  any  relationship  to  the 
date  at  which  you  hoped  to  get  the  magazine  off  the  press  i 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  would  bear  a  varying  relationship. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Would  you,  when  you  were  fixing  that  date,  think 
about  the  time  when  the  magazine  would  probably  come  off  the  presSj^ 
if  you  met  that  deadline  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  was  not  thinking  in  terms  of  when  it  would  come' 
off  the  press.  I  was  thinking  in  terms  of  getting  it  out  and  dis- 
tributed. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Well,  would  you  think,  when  you  were  fixing  the 
deadline  for  getting  copy  in  of  that,  in  terms  of  when  you  would  get 
the  magazine  out  and  get  it  distributed? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwnne,  you  have  all  of  the  documents  of 
thelPR. 

The  Chairman.  Strike  that  from  the  record,  if  you  please.  Mr. 
Lattimore,  when  the  chairman  calls  your  attention  to  this,  please  desist 
from  further  expression. 

The  question,  Mr.  Lattimore,  has  been  propounded  to  you,  and  you 
answered  it  this  morning  or  yesterday  when  you  said  that  probably 
6  weeks,  at  times,  was  the  lag.  Now,  if  you  do  not  know  what  the 
lag  was,  state  to  the  counsel  that  you  do  not  know.  If  you  know  what 
it  was,  state  to  the  counsel  that  you  know.  If  you  cannot,  then  give 
your  best  estimate  as  to  what  the  lag  was. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  can't  state  what  the  lag  was.  When  Mr.  Sour- 
wine first  asked  me  that  question,  I  thought  it  was  rather  a  trivial 
question.  If  he  wanted  to  have  6  weeks,  I  was  perfectly  willing  to 
have  it. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  no  trivial  questions  here.  We  try  to 
get  away  from  the  trivial  stuff.  We  got  away  from  that  yesterday. 
We  closed  that  ^yesterday. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  proceed,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  when  you,  as  editor  of  this  magazine, 
would  fix  a  date  by  which  you  w^ere  going  to  try  to  get  your  copy  in — 
in  other  words,  a  deadline — did  you  think  of  that  deadline  in  relation 
to  the  time  when  you  would  be  able  to  get  the  magazine  out  and 
distributed  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes,  I  did. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  what  was  the  relationship  in  your  mind  there 
between  the  deadline  which  you  fixed  and  the  time  when  you  would 
be  able  to  get  the  magazine  out  and  distributed  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  At  this  date,  I  don't  know.  As  I  have  already 
said,  I  think  it  varied  from  quarter  to  quarter. 


3152  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  How  much  did  it  vary  ? 

Mr.  Laitimore.  I  don't  recall. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  it  vary  by  as  much  as  a  month  from  quarter  to 
quarter  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  It  might  easily  have. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  You  mean  that  when  you  fixed  your  deadline, 
Mr.  Lattimore,  you  didn't  know  within  a  month  when  you  were  going 
to  be  able  to  get  the  magazine  off  the  press,  if  you  met  that  deadline? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  the  first,  part  of  my  editing  of  Pacific  Affairs, 
when  I  first  started  editing  it  from  China,  later  when  issues  had  to  be 
edited  while  I  was  traveling  as  in  this  case  from  China  all  the  way 
to  America,  it  would  vary  considerably. 

]\Ir.  Soi-RwixE.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that  you  could  pos- 
sibly have  gone  on  off  to  Russia,  be  there  in  April,  and  have  left  the 
question  of  your  June  issue  up  in  the  air  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  there  was  an  assistant  editor  in  Xew  York, 
and  to  cover  contingencies  for  a  thing  like  that  I  would,  like  my  travel- 
ing, for  instance,  I  would  try  to  have  extra  articles  on  tap  for  that 
issue  so  that  the  assistant  editor  could  make  a  last-minute  choice 
and  get  out  a  full  issue. 

I  may  point  out  that  this  Communist  article  which  I  was  expecting 
■could  easily  have  been  an  article  mailed  from  Peking  to  New  York 
without  my  seeing  it,  in  the  manner  in  which  that  periodical  was 
edited,  and  it  may  never  have  come  through,  or  may  have  come 
through  and  been  rejected. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Are  you  through  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Surely. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Lattimore,  at  the  time  you 
were  having  this  conference  on  the  8th  of  April ■ 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  SoFRWixE.  The  conference  in  Moscow  with  Voitinsky  and  Mo- 
tiliev  and  others,  don't  you  know  now,  and  didn't  you  know  then 
whether  the  copy  was  all  in  for  the  forthcoming  June  issue  of  Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  remember  at  all,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  When  you  said  here  "In  the  next  issue  there  is  to  be 
an  article  by  a  Communist  writer,"  were  you  not  referring  to  an  article 
which  had  already  been  edited,  the  copy  on  which  had  already  been 
sent  to  the  printer? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  necessarily.  I  could  easily  have  been  referring 
to  an  article  that  was  promised. 

Senator  Smith.  Mr.  Sourwine,  may  I  suggest  there  that  the  lan- 
guage is  antagonistic.  I  would  think  that  that  would  presuppose 
that  at  that  time  the  article  was  in  existence,  and  Dr.  Lattimore  had 
known  it  and  had  seen  it,  because  he  was  pronouncing  it  antagonistic. 

Mr.  Soi'RWTNE.  That  is  the  point  I  w^as  attempting  to  make.  Senator. 

Isn't  that  true,  Mr.  Lattimore  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  an  article  by  a  Chinese  Communist 
would  automatically  be  displeasing  to  the  Chinese  council. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  our  question?     Just  a  moment. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  asked  him  if  it  was  not  true  that  he  w^as  referring 
to  an  article  which  was  in  existence  which  was  antagonistic. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No ;  not  that  I  recall. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3153 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  think  it  is  possible  that  this 
magazine,  Pacific  Affairs,  could  ever  have  come  off  the  press  in  less 
than  a  month  after  the  time  that  the  copy  was  all  in  ? 

Mr.  FoRTAS.  Just  a  moment.    Mr.  Lattimore  wants  to  consult  me. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Surely. 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question,  please. 
(The  record  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Sourwine,  I  am  incompetent  to  answer  that 
question. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  That  was  the  June  issue.  Do  you  know  when  it 
came  off  the  press? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  he  is  incompetent  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  asked  him  another  one. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  will  show  you  the  table  of  contents  page  and  ask 
you  the  question  again.  Do  you  know  when  that  magazine  came  off 
the  press;  that  is,  the  June  issue  for  1936? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  don't  know  when  it  came  off  the  press. 

Mr,  Sourwine.  There  is  a  time  stamp  and  a  copyright  number  on 
that  page,  are  there  not  ?    What  is  the  date  stamp  there  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  This  stamp  on  here  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Is  that  a  copyright  stamp  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Don't  you  recognize  it  as  such  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No;  I  don't.  I  don't  think  I  have  ever  seen  one 
before.    The  stamp  here,  if  it  is  a  copyright  stamp,  is  May  8,  1936. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  there  a  copyright  number  there  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  There  is  a  circle  with  a  C  in  it,  and  C-l-B-299322. 
It  is  the  first  time  in  my  life  I  have  ever  seen  such  a  mark.  Perhaps 
it  is  a  copyright  mark. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  edited  the  magazine  for  how  many  years? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  edited  the  magazine  for  nearly  7  years. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  this  is  the  first  time  that  you  have  ever  seen 
the  symbol,  a  circle  with  a  C  in  it,  or  knew  what  it  meant  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  first  time  I  have  ever  seen  it. 

Senator  Smith.  May  I  inquire,  is  that  on  other  copies  also  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  There  is  a  similar  copyright  stamp  on  all  other 
copies  that  we  have  been  able  to  find  in  this  volume,  sir. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Does  it  show  a  considerable  variation  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  There  is  some  variation,  ]\Ir.  Lattimore.  That  ques- 
tion had  best  be  answered  by  giving  the  facts. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Mr.  Lattimore,  did  you  not  know  that  a  copy 
was  sent  to  the  Patent  Office? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  My  knowledge  of  copyright  procedure.  Senator 
Ferguson,  is  extremely  vague.  All  I  know  about  copyright  procedure 
is  that  I  believe  anything  that  is  to  be  copyrighted  has  to  be  deposited 
in  the  Library  of  Congress.     Isn't  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  state  this 
for  the  record,  the  issue  here,  and  I  show  it  to  the  Chair  as  I  speak,  of 
Pacific  Affairs  for  March  bears  the  copyright  symbol  and  number 
B-289470,  and  the  date  February  5,  1936.  That  is  a  variation  of  3 
days  from  the  other  one.  That  is,  this  is  the  March  issue  which  was 
copyrighted  February  5. 


3154  INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS 

The  June  issue,  the  date  which  was  given,  was  copyrighted  May  8. 
The  September  issue  bears  copyright  number  B-309436,  was  copy- 
righted August  20.  And  the  December  issue  copyright  B-320637, 
bears  the  date  September  10,  1936. 

I  might  also  inform  the  committee,  and  if  the  committee  desires 
testimony  or  an  affidavit  on  this  point  it  can  be  secured,  a  telephone 
check  was  made  by  the  staff  of  the  committee  with  Mr.  Clyde  S.  Ed- 
wards, Chief  of  the  Serials  Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress,  who 
furnished  this  information ; 

That  Pacific  Aifairs  dated  June  1936  was  stamped  May  11, 1936,  the 
date  when  that  piece  was  received  in  the  Periodicals  Division  for  shelv- 
ing; that  the  contents  page,  May  8,  1936,  bears  the  copyright  stamp 
OCIB-29932,  and  that  is  the  date  when  the  issue  was  received  in  the 
copyright  office  for  registration,  and  that  number  is  the  copyright 
registration  number. 

We  are  informed  by  Mr.  Edwards  over  the  telephone  that  the  official 
records  of  the  Library  of  Congress  so  show. 

If  I  might  point  out  just  one  more  thing.  That  means  that  this 
magazine  was  off  the  press  on  May  8.  It  was  off  the  press  sufficiently 
in  advance  of  May  8  to  have,  by  that  date,  reached  the  Library  of  Con- 
gress as  the  official  depository  for  copyright.  It  was  then  less  than  1 
month  after  the  date  on  which  the  witness  has  testified  that  in  Moscow 
he  was  stating  that  this  issue  was  to  have  in  it  an  article  by  a  Com- 
munist writer  which  is  antagonistic  to  the  Chinese  council  and  the 
British  council. 

I  would  now  like  to  ask  you  once  more,  Mr.  Lattimore,  whether  you 
still  want  to  say  that  that  article  which  you  were  referring  to  there  was 
not  then  in  existence  and  the  copy  had  not  then  been  sent  to  the 
printer? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  don't  believe  it  could  have  been,  Mr.  Sourwine, 
I  have  a  general  but  clear  recollection  that  there  are  a  number  of 
cases  in  my  editorial  corespondence  with  various  people  in  which  I 
referred  to  a  future  article  as  a  certainty,  and  then  it  never  came  out 
in  the  magazine. 

Mr.  SoTjRwiNE.  You  were  not  in  this  conference  discussing  Asiaticus 
at  all ;  is  that  your  statement  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  recollection,  the 
question  of  Asiaticus  never  came  up. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Wlio  is  By  water  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Hector  Bywater — I  am  not  certain  whether  he  was 
British  or  American.  He,  in  the  1930's,  was  more  or  less  the  Hanson 
Baldwin  of  his  time.     He  was  a  writer,  especially  on  naval  strategy. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Was  he  pro-Communist,  anti-Communist,  conserva- 
tive, liberal  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  would  say  conservative. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Have  you  looked  at  the  last  page  of  this  memoran- 
dum which  has  been  shown  you  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No  ;  I  haven't. 

The  Chairman.  Have  we  a  photostatic  copy  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  we  have  here  is  typed.  We  can  give  him  the 
photostatic  copy  if  he  prefers. 

You  have  the  photostatic  copy  there  if  you  wish  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  last  page  ? 


INSTITUTE    OF   PACIFIC   RELATIONS  3155 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Tlie  last  page.  And  look  at  the  third  paragraph 
from  the  end  of  the  page.  Will  you  read  that  paragraph  aloud, 
please? 

Mr.  Morris.  Will  you  identify  Mr.  Motiliev,  Mr.  Lattimore,  too? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mr.  Motiliev  was  the  head  of  the  Soviet  council. 

Motiliev  made  the  following  proposals  as  to  organization  of  the  magazine:  (a) 
The  leading  article  should  always  expr.ess  the  opinion  of  a  definite  council.  It  is 
customary  to  have  the  leading  article  more  or  less  official.  (6)  Articles  by 
unknown  and  irresponsible  writers  should  not  be  published  on  important  ques- 
tions. But  there  should  be  articles  by  leading  personalities  who  are  of  interest, 
no  matter  what  they  represent;  e.  g.  By  water  and  Asiaticus.  (c)  There  should 
not  be  criticism  of  books  and  opinions  of  the  leading  personalities  of  the  various 
member  countries.  It  is  unnecessary  to  have  such  criticism ;  it  is  not  part  of 
the  work  of  the  IPR,  and  it  embarrasses  the  members  of  the  councils. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Wliat  magazine  was  referred  to  there? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  was  referring  to  Pacific  Affairs. 

Mr.  SouKwiNE.  He  was  referring  to  Asiaticus,  too ;  wasn't  he  ? 

]Mr.  Lattimore.  He  also  refers  to  Asiaticus. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Having  refreshed  your  memory  by  reading  that 
paragraph  what  do  you  say  now  about  whether  Asiaticus  was  discussed 
at  that  conference  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Mt.  Motiliev  may  have  brought  up  the  subject  of 
Asiaticus. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  was  discussed  at  the  conference;  is  that 
right  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  He  was  discussed  by  Mr.  Motiliev. 

Mr.  SoTjRwiNE.  Can  you  say,  Mr.  Lattimore,  whether  you  identified 
to  these  gentlemen  who  were  at  the  conference  the  Communist  writer 
to  whom  you  referred,  who  was  to  have  an  article  in  the  Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr.  Lattlmore.  No  ;  I  don't  believe  I  did. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  Did  you  not  identify  him  as  Asiaticus  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  I  ask  a  question  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Could  there  be  any  other  author  in  that  particu- 
lar magazine  which  was  the  one  published  after  you  were  in  Moscow 
that  could  have  been  the  Communist  you  were  talking  about  ? 

Mr.  Latitmore.  Senator  Ferguson,  this  is  referring  back  to  the 
conversation  in  1936 

The  Chairman.  Answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Lattimore  (continuing).     And  my  memory  is  necessarily 

The  Chairman.  Look  at  the  magazine  and  answer  the  question. 

Senator  Ferguson.  And  if  there  are  any  others  that  would  be  in  a 
class  of  being  a  Communist  outside  of  the  one  we  have  been  talking 
about. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  I  do  not  think  Senator  Ferguson,  that  this  article 
to  which  you  have  referred,  the  Asiaticus  article,  or  any  other  article 
in  that  issue,  could  be  referred  to  as  Communist. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  the  question.  That  is  not  the  question 
at  all.  Strike  that  answer,  Mr.  Reporter,  and  read  the  question  to  the 
witness. 

(The  record  was  read  by  the  reporter.) 

Senator  Ferguson.  We  were  talking  about  Asiaticus.  You  say 
it  is  not  him.    Is  there  any  other  that  it  could  be  ? 


3156  INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS 

Mr.  Lattimore.  May  I  amend  my  answer,  tlien,  to  say  that  it  is  not 
he  or  any  other. 

The  C [I AIRMAN.  All  right. 

Senator  Ferguson.  Today,  do  you  believe  that  Asiaticiis  was  a 
Coiumiinist  ( 

Mr.  LArriMORE.  Today,  according  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  I 
believe  he  very  likely  was.     I  don't  know  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Senator  Ferguson.  You  qualify  it  by  "very  likely."  You  would 
not  say  he  was  i 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Not  of  my  personal  knowledge ;  no. 

Senator  Ferguson.  From  anything  that  you  have  read  ? 

Mr.  La'itimore.  I  have  read  other  people's  opinions,  and  my  opinion 
would  be  second-hand. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Lattimore,  do  you  remember  the  context  of  the 
page  that  I  sliowed  you  of  that  article  ?  You  have  it  there  before  you. 
Will  you  look  at  it  again  and  tell  me  whether  there  is  an;5^'one  else  on 
that  page  whom  you  now  know  or  believe  to  have  been  a  Communist? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  The  top  name  on  the  list  is  Harriet  Moore,  who  has 
refused  to  answer  the  question  whether  she  was  ever  a  Communist; 
and,  therefore,  it  would  now  be  my  supposition  that  she  probably 
was. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  were  you  referring  to  Harriet  INIoore  in  this 
conference  in  Moscow  when  you  spoke  of  a  Communist  writer  who  was 
to  have  an  article  in  Pacific  Affairs^ 

Mr.  Lattimore.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  there  any  other  person  on  that  table  of  contents 
listed  as  an  author  of  an  article  who  is  now  known  to  you  or  believed 
b}'  you  to  have  been  a  Connnunist  '^ 

Mr.  Lat-timore.  There  is  nobody  there  known  to  me  or  believed  by 
me  to  be  a  Connnunist,  with  the  exception  of  Harriet  Moore,  and  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  accept  Asiaticus  as  a  Communist.  But  I  don't 
know  it  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then  is  it  true,  Mr.  Lattimore,  that,  on  the  basis  of 
what  you  know  or  believe  now,  that  article  by  Asiaticus  meets  the 
description  which  you  gave  in  the  Moscow  conference  of  an  article 
which  you  said  was  to  be  in  the  next  issue  of  Pacific  Affiairs? 

Mr.  LAnTMORE.  I  don't  believe  this  Asiaticus  article  meets  the 
description. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  you  now  believe  Asiaticus  to  be  or  to  have 
been  a  Communist,  is  that  right? 
Mr.  Lattok^je.  Very  likely;  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  He  did  not  represent  the  Soviet  council;  did  he? 
Mr.  La'itimore.  No;  he  didn't. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  This  was  a  leading  article;  was  it  not? 
Mr.  LA'rnMORE.  It  was  one  of  the  main   articles.     Technically, 
the  leading  ai'ticle  is  the  first  article  in  any  issue,  and  I  don't  think 
we  refer  to  subsequent  articles. 
The  Chairman.  Get  the  answer. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  In  that  sense,  it  was  not  a  leading  article.  The 
leading  article  is  always  the  first  one. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  ask  you  for  the  sense.  Was  it  or  was  it 
not  a  leading  article?    It  is  very  easy  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Laitimore.  T  believe  I  am  correct.  Senator,  in  saying  it  was 
not  a  leading  article. 


INSTITUTE    OF    PACIFIC    RELATIONS  3157 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Where  did  it  appear  in  the  magazine? 

Mr.  Lati'imore.  Second  space. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  How  much  space  was  devoted  to  the  first-place  ar- 
ticle? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Page  15'7  to  page  165,  about  eight  pages. 

Mr.  SouRwiNE.  How  much  space  was  devoted  to  the  Asiaticus  ar- 
ticle? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  165  to  177.    That  would  be  about  12  pages. 

JSIr.  SouRwixE.  Was  there  any  article  in  the  magazine  in  greater 
length  than  the  xVsiaticus  article? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Yes. 

Mr.  v'^GTjRwiNE.  What  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Lattimore.  An  article  by  Guenther  Stein,  the  title  of  which  is 
"Through  the  Eyes  of  a  Japanese  Newspaper  Reader" ;  and,  without 
looking  it  up,  I  believe  it  is  a  review  of  the  Japanese  press. 

Mr.  Morris.  Is  that  the  same  Guenther  Stein  who  was  associated 
with  the  Sorge  espionage  ring? 

Mr.  Lai-timore.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was  associated  with  the 
Sorge  ring. 

Mr.  SouRWiNE.  Did  this  article  represent  a  personal  opinion,  Mr. 
Lattimore  i 

Mr.  Lattimore.  Which  article? 

Mr.  S;)URwixE.  The  article  by  Asiaticus. 

Mr.  Lattimore.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  yes. 

Mr.  SoURWixE.  AVas  t